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 0CC2B3858C2D; Wed,  3 Aug 2022 18:21:05 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0CC2B3858C2D
From: "jose.marchesi at oracle dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/25521] change semantics of const volatile variables
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2022 18:21:04 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: jose.marchesi at oracle dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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: 
Message-ID: <bug-25521-4-2lIQDY0DtD@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-25521-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-25521-4@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, 03 Aug 2022 18:21:05 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D25521

--- Comment #9 from Jose E. Marchesi <jose.marchesi at oracle dot com> ---
So I got feedback from the clang/llvm folks on this.

As you can see in [1] they asked the WG14 reflectors about the footnote 135=
 in
the C18 spec and their conclusion is that there is no normative objection to
place `const volatile' variables in read-only sections, much like non-volat=
ile
consts.

This matches my earlier impression (before I got pointed to that footnote) =
and
since there is at least one target being impacted by this GCC/LLVM discrepa=
ncy
(bpf-unknown-none) I intend to prepare a patch to change the place where GCC
places the `const volatiles'.

[1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/56468=