From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12698 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2011 16:14:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 12688 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Feb 2011 16:14:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:14:27 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p13GEPfL020684 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 3 Feb 2011 11:14:25 -0500 Received: from anchor.twiddle.home (ovpn-113-141.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.141]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p13GEOG4002417; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 11:14:24 -0500 Message-ID: <4D4AD45F.7060008@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:14:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jakub Jelinek CC: Jeff Law , Richard Guenther , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Patch ping References: <20110203115855.GR30899@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20110203115855.GR30899@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg00207.txt.bz2 On 02/03/2011 03:58 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > The following patch is awaiting review for a week: > > - http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg02059.html > P1 PR31490, section flags conflict handling > > Jakub I think the second patch, attempting to keep the warnings in declaration order, is better. I don't think there's so much extra work to warrant the inconsistency. One change though, > /* Private flag applied to disable section-anchors in a particular section. > This needs to be kept in sync with the flags used by varasm.c (defined in > output.h). */ > -#define SECTION_NO_ANCHOR 0x2000000 > +#define SECTION_NO_ANCHOR 0x4000000 That ought to have been defined as (SECTION_MACH_DEP << 1). That does leave the comment slightly out of date -- "other machine-dependent uses" perhaps? r~