From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-385713-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 24032 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2012 21:31:57 -0000
Received: (qmail 24022 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Mar 2012 21:31:55 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,TW_GJ
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 21:31:41 +0000
From: "tmsriram at google dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug other/52545] output.h: SECTION_EXCLUDE flag clobbers SECTION_MACH_DEP
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 21:31:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: other
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: tmsriram at google dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.1
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-52545-4-zPqbmsSY7P@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-52545-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-52545-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-03/txt/msg00766.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D52545

--- Comment #5 from Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram at google dot com> 2012-03-09=
 21:30:54 UTC ---
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:27 PM, gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D52545
>
> --- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay <gjl at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-03-09 =
20:27:42 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #3)
>> Right, I was not looking at SECTION_MACH_DEP when I defined the macro. I=
s it ok
>> to just bump SECTION_MACH_DEP?
>>
>> The patch I have in mind is:
>>
>> -#define SECTION_MACH_DEP 0x2000000 /* subsequent bits reserved for targ=
et */
>> -#define SECTION_EXCLUDE =C2=A00x4000000
>> +#define SECTION_EXCLUDE 0x2000000
>> +#define SECTION_MACH_DEP 0x8000000 /* subsequent bits reserved for targ=
et */
>>
>> I can bump SECTION_MACH_DEP even more to reserve more bits.
>
> The reserved bits start at SECTION_MACH_DEP, with the patch above you just
> waste the bit at 0x4000000.

I thought I will leave some bits for future flags but I guess whoever
adds a flag can also bump SECTION_MACH_DEP. I will send a patch to fix
this.

Thanks,
-Sri.

>
> Any bits covered by
> =C2=A0SECTION_MACH_DEP * (~0)
> are reserved for the machine. The bigger SECTION_MACH_DEP is, the less bi=
ts are
> left for machine specific needs.
>
> Machine specific section flag masks could be, e.g.:
>
> #define SECTION_FLAG_MACH_1 (SECTION_MACH_DEP)
> #define SECTION_FLAG_MACH_2 (SECTION_MACH_DEP << 1)
> #define SECTION_FLAG_MACH_3 (SECTION_MACH_DEP << 2)
> ...
>
> --
> Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=3Demail
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are on the CC list for the bug.