From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-368943-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26790 invoked by alias); 29 May 2014 17:12:21 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 26710 invoked by uid 89); 29 May 2014 17:12:20 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_STOCKGEN,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz
Received: from nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz (HELO nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.20.16) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 29 May 2014 17:12:19 +0000
Received: by nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix, from userid 16202)	id 1AE16540AF3; Thu, 29 May 2014 19:12:15 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 17:12:00 -0000
From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>
To: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>, David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com>,	GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,	Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>, ramrad01@arm.com,	rdsandiford@googlemail.com
Subject: Re: ipa-visibility TLC 2/n
Message-ID: <20140529171214.GB32218@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
References: <CAGWvnykpdrmfigAjx+gXghA7iWx0mo4_7V1YaAhWMh9OQdx14A@mail.gmail.com> <20140528223103.GB15880@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <CAGWvnynmW2d7S=fDWOE0g7CKfcO=y+p0v4=0jwhTAuOx+pVbYQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140528231723.GA31990@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <87bnuh9fdo.fsf@talisman.default>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87bnuh9fdo.fsf@talisman.default>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg02558.txt.bz2

> Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz> writes:
> >> Richard Sandiford wrote the original section anchors implementation,
> >> so he would be a good person to comment about the interaction between
> >> aliases and section anchors.
> >
> > Thanks! Richard, does this patch seem sane?
> 
> Looks good to me in principle, but with:
> 
> > +      struct symtab_node *snode;
> >        decl = SYMBOL_REF_DECL (symbol);
> > +
> > +      snode = symtab_node (decl);
> > +      if (snode->alias)
> > +       {
> > +         rtx target = DECL_RTL (symtab_alias_ultimate_target (snode)->decl);
> > +         SYMBOL_REF_BLOCK_OFFSET (symbol) = SYMBOL_REF_BLOCK_OFFSET (target);
> > +         return;
> > +       }
> 
> is SYMBOL_REF_BLOCK_OFFSET (target) guaranteed to be valid at this point?
> It looked at face value like you'd need a recursive call to place_block_symbol
> on the target before the copy.

My reading was that SYMBOL_REF_BLOCK_OFFSET is computed at DECL_RTL calculation
time. But you are right - it is done by validize_mem that is not done by DECL_RTL.
Shall I just call it on target first?

Honza
> 
> Thanks,
> Richard