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 4B918386F447; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 23:21:13 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4B918386F447
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1592263273;
 bh=mGzyYKAD5OkQFxJzNBmmCREwy2IPX1GkAuFMeRZl/CQ=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=wqRQD8YnVDFwhIICxMpGLGZr48gPlu6XRnsZs+jNEOJ1E5wijHFF9L2uIPXSc2Vxy
 QlfEAa9B+lztmNTKviVCJZW1+0wgA/NxHH5wTR3uA6vOKRgD+NB20RXD4FdKo3VdBO
 8548t2/YS/Mki2CTY8xCb2J+ZQNfiEUVqBWvbkMw=
From: "wilson at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/95637] Read-only data assigned to `.sdata' rather than
 `.rodata'
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 23:21:13 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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-95637-4-h0TH9VwE7Y@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-95637-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-95637-4@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: <http://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: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 23:21:13 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95637

--- Comment #3 from Jim Wilson <wilson at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
People have asked about constant pools before, but as far as I know no one =
has
tried to implement support for them yet.

We don't have a pc-relative load, so it would be a two instruction sequence
with auipc.  Unless maybe you load the base address into a register, which =
is
probably OK for rvi but may cause register pressure problems for rve.  We h=
ave
a 12-bit signed offset, +/-2K which limits the range we can address if you =
want
to put the base address in a register.  There could also complications with=
 the
aggressive link time code relaxations that we do, depending on where you put
the constant pools and how you use them.  It isn't clear if constant pools =
are
better or worse than what we already have.=