From patchwork Mon Jun 4 20:30:00 2012 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Steven Bosscher X-Patchwork-Id: 162871 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DAC77B6F86 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 06:30:23 +1000 (EST) Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; x=1339446624; h=Comment: DomainKey-Signature:Received:Received:Received:Received: MIME-Version:Received:Received:In-Reply-To:References:Date: Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender: Delivered-To; bh=4ArBia+E1nWzKJKEXHYBvn8n0k0=; b=VGHqYdiLBuyt1jk eBm4QVJEDdn7i1iHaT+evGz+QlAknFPauuAw721FIOSOXN9rWeVey0v36Fho6TY+ 5WGTg2NghfYILle3EZY/XJlD2Uo5TCn7cUcH4gLHHHVvH4iEtrGzIBjTIABOjE3m yoK1CgNNiryhYokHFK/uZH17U+YU= Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=Received:Received:X-SWARE-Spam-Status:X-Spam-Check-By:Received:Received:MIME-Version:Received:Received:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-IsSubscribed:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; b=WeOcbPR1ErB3IH3zBcqa96yunNR+F47KEV4uQcvWhIuG2TngZY/iVYcit+OfbJ J9+TSQjP6C+DY+sqi8oZfL3QGTsqh5myOvzx6uBoiNaIX4tg5meUq/ArrvLPQ9KV nqETaKL+fUqGYwFEWZouN2cxOedbrxfk6WfYxvUdz9TCA=; Received: (qmail 13286 invoked by alias); 4 Jun 2012 20:30:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 13278 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Jun 2012 20:30:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, KHOP_RCVD_TRUST, KHOP_THREADED, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE, TW_WW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f47.google.com (HELO mail-lpp01m010-f47.google.com) (209.85.215.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:30:02 +0000 Received: by lags15 with SMTP id s15so3519177lag.20 for ; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:30:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.102.137 with SMTP id fo9mr14191319lab.35.1338841800981; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:30:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.4.229 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:30:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FCD106E.4010905@redhat.com> References: <4FCD106E.4010905@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 22:30:00 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [patch][gcc47] Deprecate -fconserve-space From: Steven Bosscher To: Jason Merrill Cc: Richard Guenther , GCC Patches X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > In wwwdocs I would also mention that the flag has no effect on most targets. How about this: ? >  In fact, I'm not sure it affects any targets that we still actually > support; are there any a.out targets left? There is still a file config/arm/aout.h, and there appears to be code in config/cris/cris.c to support an unnamed non-ELF target that may be a.out. But it's hard to tell what other targets are doing. Ciao! Steven Index: htdocs/gcc-4.7/changes.html =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.7/changes.html,v retrieving revision 1.110 diff -u -r1.110 changes.html --- htdocs/gcc-4.7/changes.html 1 Jun 2012 09:27:10 -0000 1.110 +++ htdocs/gcc-4.7/changes.html 4 Jun 2012 20:29:09 -0000 @@ -15,6 +15,14 @@

Caveats

    +
  • The -fconserve-space flag has been + deprecated. The flag had no effect for most targets: only + targets without a global .bss section and without + support for switchable sections. Furthermore, the flag only + had an effect for G++, where it could result in wrong semantics + (please refer to the GCC manual for further details). + The flag will be removed in GCC 4.8

  • +
  • Support for a number of older systems and recently unmaintained or untested target ports of GCC has been declared obsolete in GCC 4.7. Unless there is activity to revive them, the