From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-368903-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 4594 invoked by alias); 29 May 2014 08:08:10 -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 4583 invoked by uid 89); 29 May 2014 08:08:09 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_STOCKGEN,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-we0-f172.google.com
Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (HELO mail-we0-f172.google.com) (74.125.82.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 29 May 2014 08:08:07 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k48so12681220wev.31        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu, 29 May 2014 01:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.194.89.40 with SMTP id bl8mr7964580wjb.90.1401350884749;        Thu, 29 May 2014 01:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([2.26.169.52])        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id dr6sm23634610wid.6.2014.05.29.01.08.03        for <multiple recipients>        (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);        Thu, 29 May 2014 01:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@googlemail.com>
To: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>
Mail-Followup-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
Cc: David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@gmail.com>,  GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,  Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>,  ramrad01@arm.com
Subject: Re: ipa-visibility TLC 2/n
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>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 08:08:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <20140528231723.GA31990@kam.mff.cuni.cz> (Jan Hubicka's message	of "Thu, 29 May 2014 01:17:23 +0200")
Message-ID: <87bnuh9fdo.fsf@talisman.default>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg02518.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.

Thanks,
Richard