From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-414962-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 27773 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2013 06:48:04 -0000
Received: (qmail 27661 invoked by uid 48); 12 Feb 2013 06:47:44 -0000
From: "demiurg_spb at freemail dot ru" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/56263] [avr] Provide strict address-space checking
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 06:48:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: demiurg_spb at freemail dot ru
X-Bugzilla-Status: SUSPENDED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P5
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-56263-4-kXZGdjsPI0@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-56263-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-56263-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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: 2013-02/txt/msg01127.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56263

--- Comment #3 from demiurg_spb at freemail dot ru 2013-02-12 06:47:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)

> This cannot work because ISO/IEC TR18037 forces these literals into generic
> space.
> 

ISO/IEC TR18037
5.1.2 Address-space type qualifiers:

If the type of an object is qualified by an address space name, the
object is allocated in the specified address space; otherwise, the object is
allocated in the generic address space.


I just re-read the standard.
I could not find any reason not permitted to place the data in __flash address
space in that case:

const char __flash* const __flash names[] = {"flash_str1", "flash_str2"};

IAR compilers it does, and that hinders gcc do the same?
I think it's an easy misunderstanding, preventing common sense ...