From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-436852-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 115647 invoked by alias); 26 Sep 2016 12:31:44 -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 115608 invoked by uid 89); 26 Sep 2016 12:31:43 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,KAM_ASCII_DIVIDERS,KAM_STOCKGEN,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*RU:14.3.235.1, H*M:atmel, Hx-spam-relays-external:14.3.235.1, H*F:D*atmel.com
X-HELO: eusmtp01.atmel.com
Received: from eusmtp01.atmel.com (HELO eusmtp01.atmel.com) (212.144.249.242) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:31:33 +0000
Received: from HNOCHT01.corp.atmel.com (10.145.133.40) by eusmtp01.atmel.com (10.145.145.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:31:28 +0200
Received: from jaguar.atmel.com (10.145.133.18) by HNOCHT01.corp.atmel.com (10.145.133.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:31:28 +0200
References: <87fuosaynf.fsf@atmel.com>
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.17; emacs 24.5.1
From: Senthil Kumar Selvaraj <senthil_kumar.selvaraj@atmel.com>
To: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, Denis Chertykov	<chertykov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch, avr] Backport fix for PR 65210 to gcc-5-branch
In-Reply-To: <87fuosaynf.fsf@atmel.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:45:00 -0000
Message-ID: <87h992lu70.fsf@atmel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg01815.txt.bz2

Ping!

Regards
Senthil
Senthil Kumar Selvaraj writes:

> Hi,
>
>   Is it ok to backport PR 65210 to gcc-5-branch? The patch is already in
>   6.x and trunk.
>
> Regards
> Senthil
>
> gcc/ChangeLog
>
> 2016-09-22  Senthil Kumar Selvaraj  <senthil_kumar.selvaraj@atmel.com>
>
> 	Backport from trunk r227496
>
> 	PR target/65210
> 	* config/avr/avr.c (avr_eval_addr_attrib): Look for io_low
> 	attribute as well.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
>
> 2016-09-22  Senthil Kumar Selvaraj  <senthil_kumar.selvaraj@atmel.com>
>
> 	Backport from trunk r227496
>
> 	PR target/65210
> 	* gcc.target/avr/pr65210.c: New test.
>
> Index: gcc/config/avr/avr.c
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/config/avr/avr.c	(revision 240340)
> +++ gcc/config/avr/avr.c	(working copy)
> @@ -9122,6 +9122,8 @@
>        if (SYMBOL_REF_FLAGS (x) & SYMBOL_FLAG_IO)
>  	{
>  	  attr = lookup_attribute ("io", DECL_ATTRIBUTES (decl));
> +	  if (!attr || !TREE_VALUE (attr))
> +	    attr = lookup_attribute ("io_low", DECL_ATTRIBUTES (decl));
>  	  gcc_assert (attr);
>  	}
>        if (!attr || !TREE_VALUE (attr))
>        Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/avr/pr65210.c
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/avr/pr65210.c	(nonexistent)
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/avr/pr65210.c	(working copy)
> @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +
> +/* This testcase exposes PR65210. Usage of the io_low attribute
> +   causes assertion failure because code only looks for the io
> +   attribute if SYMBOL_FLAG_IO is set. */
> +
> +volatile char q __attribute__((io_low,address(0x81)));