From: Cupertino Miranda <cupertino.miranda@oracle.com>
To: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>
Cc: Cupertino Miranda <cupertinomiranda@gmail.com>,
jose.marchesi@oracle.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PING, PING] Re: [PATCH 2/2] Corrected pr25521.c target matching.
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2023 09:51:11 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87bkl245io.fsf@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87v8jn9zus.fsf@oracle.com>
[PING]
Cupertino Miranda writes:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Please, please, give me some feedback on this one.
> I just don't want to have to keep asking you for time on this small
> pending patches that I also have to keep track on.
>
> I realized your committed the other one. Thank you !
>
> Best regards,
> Cupertino
>
>
> Cupertino Miranda writes:
>
>> PING !!!!!
>>
>> Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches writes:
>>
>>> Hi Jeff,
>>>
>>> Can you please confirm if the patch is Ok?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Cupertino
>>>
>>>> Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for the comments and suggestions.
>>>>> I have changed the patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately in case of rx target I could not make
>>>>> scan-assembler-symbol-section to match. I believe it is because the
>>>>> .section and .global entries order is reversed in this target.
>>>>>
>>>>> Patch in inlined below. looking forward to your comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cupertino
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c
>>>>> index 63363a03b9f..82b4cd88ec0 100644
>>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c
>>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c
>>>>> @@ -2,9 +2,10 @@
>>>>> sections.
>>>>>
>>>>> { dg-require-effective-target elf }
>>>>> - { dg-do compile } */
>>>>> + { dg-do compile }
>>>>> + { dg-skip-if "" { ! const_volatile_readonly_section } } */
>>>>>
>>>>> const volatile int foo = 30;
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "\\.s\?rodata" } } */
>>>>> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler {.section C,} { target { rx-*-* } } } } */
>>>>> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-symbol-section {^_?foo$} {^\.(const|s?rodata)} { target { ! "rx-*-*" } } } } */
>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
>>>>> index c0694af2338..91aafd89909 100644
>>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
>>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
>>>>> @@ -12295,3 +12295,13 @@ proc check_is_prog_name_available { prog } {
>>>>>
>>>>> return 1
>>>>> }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +# returns 1 if target does selects a readonly section for const volatile variables.
>>>>> +proc check_effective_target_const_volatile_readonly_section { } {
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if { [istarget powerpc-*-*]
>>>>> + || [check-flags { "" { powerpc64-*-* } { -m32 } }] } {
>>>>> + return 0
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + return 1
>>>>> +}
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff Law writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/7/22 08:45, Cupertino Miranda wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/2/22 10:52, Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>>>>>>>> This commit is a follow up of bugzilla #107181.
>>>>>>>>> The commit /a0aafbc/ changed the default implementation of the
>>>>>>>>> SELECT_SECTION hook in order to match clang/llvm behaviour w.r.t the
>>>>>>>>> placement of `const volatile' objects.
>>>>>>>>> However, the following targets use target-specific selection functions
>>>>>>>>> and they choke on the testcase pr25521.c:
>>>>>>>>> *rx - target sets its const variables as '.section C,"a",@progbits'.
>>>>>>>> That's presumably a constant section. We should instead twiddle the test to
>>>>>>>> recognize that section.
>>>>>>> Although @progbits is indeed a constant section, I believe it is
>>>>>>> more interesting to detect if the `rx' starts selecting more
>>>>>>> standard sections instead of the current @progbits.
>>>>>>> That was the reason why I opted to XFAIL instead of PASSing it.
>>>>>>> Can I keep it as such ?
>>>>>> I'm not aware of any ongoing development for that port, so I would not let
>>>>>> concerns about the rx port changing behavior dominate how we approach this
>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The rx port is using a different name for the section. That's valid thing to
>>>>>> do and to the extent we can, we should support that in the test rather than
>>>>>> (incorrectly IMHO) xfailing the test just becuase the name isn't what we
>>>>>> expected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To avoid over-eagerly matching, I would probably search for "C," I wouldn't do
>>>>>> that for the const or rodata sections as they often have a suffix like 1, 2, 4,
>>>>>> 8 for different sized rodata sections.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PPC32 is explicitly doing something different and placing those objects into an
>>>>>> RW section. So for PPC32 it makes more sense to skip the test rather than xfail
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-09 9:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-02 17:52 [PATCH] `const volatile' sections selection - bugzilla #107181 Cupertino Miranda
2022-12-02 17:52 ` [PATCH 1/2] select .rodata for const volatile variables Cupertino Miranda
2022-12-05 18:06 ` Jeff Law
2022-12-07 15:12 ` Cupertino Miranda
2022-12-15 10:13 ` Cupertino Miranda
2022-12-22 17:21 ` [PING] " Cupertino Miranda
2023-01-02 10:42 ` Cupertino Miranda
2023-01-09 7:57 ` Richard Biener
2023-01-13 15:06 ` Cupertino Miranda
2023-01-19 9:59 ` Cupertino Miranda
2023-01-22 18:43 ` Jeff Law
2023-01-22 18:49 ` Jeff Law
2022-12-02 17:52 ` [PATCH 2/2] Corrected pr25521.c target matching Cupertino Miranda
2022-12-05 18:47 ` Jeff Law
2022-12-07 15:45 ` Cupertino Miranda
2022-12-15 10:14 ` Cupertino Miranda
2022-12-22 17:22 ` [PING] " Cupertino Miranda
2023-01-02 10:43 ` Cupertino Miranda
2023-01-13 15:13 ` Cupertino Miranda
2023-01-22 19:04 ` Jeff Law
2023-01-24 12:24 ` Cupertino Miranda
2023-01-31 9:10 ` [PING] " Cupertino Miranda
2023-02-07 9:53 ` Cupertino Miranda
2023-02-17 14:33 ` Cupertino Miranda
2023-02-27 10:17 ` Cupertino Miranda
2023-03-09 9:51 ` Cupertino Miranda [this message]
2023-03-11 16:25 ` Jeff Law
2023-03-13 17:52 ` Cupertino Miranda
2023-03-13 17:57 ` Cupertino Miranda
2023-04-03 4:16 ` Jeff Law
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87bkl245io.fsf@oracle.com \
--to=cupertino.miranda@oracle.com \
--cc=cupertinomiranda@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jeffreyalaw@gmail.com \
--cc=jose.marchesi@oracle.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).