From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id C1F0F3858D1E; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 11:57:22 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C1F0F3858D1E
From: "matz at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/106571] Implement -Wsection diag
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 11:57:22 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: matz at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-106571-4-Ul1Sxs15PW@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106571-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106571-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 11:57:22 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106571

Michael Matz <matz at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |matz at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #4 from Michael Matz <matz at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
To elaborate: normally you don't need to know which section a variable will=
 be
placed into when generating code to access it.  (In fact you don't even nee=
d to
know if it's defined in the same linking component at all)

So, for declarations the section is immaterial, and checking for a mismatch
between decl and def doesn't seem appropriate.  In the general case.  This =
is
not
the general case, the per-cpu sections of the kernel have special semantics,
and I agree with Andrew that checking would be better implemented with
something
orthogonal to the section attribute itself.

Boris: what does DECLARE_PER_CPU() expand into?  Are there other attributes
that could be usefully checked for mismatch between decl and def?=