Re: [RFC: Patch, PR 60158] gcc/varasm.c : Pass actual alignment value to output_constant_pool_2

[Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>]

On 04/30/2015 09:34 AM, rohitarulraj@freescale.com wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeff Law [mailto:law@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 8:32 PM
>> To: Dharmakan Rohit-B30502; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org;
>> rguenther@suse.de; Jakub Jelinek
>> Cc: Alan Modra; David Edelsohn; Wienskoski Edmar-RA8797
>> Subject: Re: [RFC: Patch, PR 60158] gcc/varasm.c : Pass actual alignment value
>> to output_constant_pool_2
>>
>> On 04/29/2015 04:30 AM, rohitarulraj@freescale.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Jeff, I have made the changes as per your comments and attached the
>> patch.
>>> If the patch is OK, I will proceed with the regression tests.
>> This patch refers back to 60158 and based on what I see in 60158, it appears I
>> should be looking for a .data.rel.ro.local section which contains the address
>> of a string constant.  But the constants are being put into .rodata.str1.4.  And
>> if the issue is we're putting bits into the wrong section and don't have an
>> appropriate .fixup section, then ISTM that the test should be compiled, then
>> objdump used to verify the sections and/or relocations.
>>
>> An additional concern is that I get the same code for the included testcase
>> with or without your changes.  This is with a powerpc-softfloat-linux-gnuspe
>> configured compiler -- which matches what I saw in pr 60158.
>>
>> So while the patch seems reasonable, I'm concerned that I've been unable to
>> show it changing anything.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>
> Jeff, the issue is still reproducible with GCC v4.8 branch but not with GCC v4.9 or trunk.
Was it fixed by some other approach or has the bug gone latent? 
Obviously if the former, then the patch is only relevant to gcc-4.8 if 
the latter, then we'll still want to get it fixed on the trunk and 
possibly in the release branches.

Can you please investigate if the bug has been fixed by other means or 
if it's just gone latent on the trunk?

Thanks,
jeff