On 06/19/13 09:26:30, Gary Funck wrote:
> The variable declaration tree node looks about right to me.
> However, it never makes it into the output assembler file.
>
> What is the recommended method for making sure that the
> static variable created above is associated with the current
> translatio
On 06/18/13 16:37:04, Gary Funck wrote:
> The initialization function is currently generated in tree form in the
> usual way (it will be gimplified when the gimple pass is run).
>
> The code that is being generated is roughly equivalent to:
>
> static void
> __upc_init_decls (void)
>
On 06/18/13 22:27:51, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> The advice would have to be that the front end should not write out
> anything to the assembler file.
>
> Why not just emit the function as GIMPLE (even if your stmt_list is
> empty) and let your main() call it?
The initialization function is current
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Gary Funck wrote:
> It seems that GUPC may be calling assemble_addr_to_section() too early and
> that
> some other method of locating the UPC shared data related initialization into
> the UPC "upc_init_array" section needs to be implemented. Either that,
> or som
On 06/05/13 16:18:52, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> this patch deals with C++ keyed methods and explicit instantiations.
> Currently> C++ calls mark_used that ultimately sets force_output
> on the functions. This is equivalent to attribute ((used))
> on the function/variable and it is bit too strong.
