Re: [PING] Re: [PATCH 2/2] Corrected pr25521.c target matching.

[Cupertino Miranda <cupertino.miranda@oracle.com>]

PING PING

Cupertino Miranda writes:

> Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches writes:
>
>> gentle ping
>>
>> Cupertino Miranda writes:
>>
>>>> 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 ?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>   *powerpc - its 32bit version is eager to allocate globals in .sdata
>>>>>              sections.
>>>>> Normally, one can expect for the variable to be allocated in .srodata,
>>>>> however, in case of powerpc-*-* or powerpc64-*-* (with -m32)
>>>>> 'targetm.have_srodata_section == false' and the code in
>>>>> categorize_decl_for_section(varasm.cc), forces it to allocate in .sdata.
>>>>>    /* If the target uses small data sections, select it.  */
>>>>>    else if (targetm.in_small_data_p (decl))
>>>>>      {
>>>>>        if (ret == SECCAT_BSS)
>>>>> 	ret = SECCAT_SBSS;
>>>>>        else if targetm.have_srodata_section && ret == SECCAT_RODATA)
>>>>> 	ret = SECCAT_SRODATA;
>>>>>        else
>>>>> 	ret = SECCAT_SDATA;
>>>>>      }
>>>> I'd just skip the test for 32bit ppc.  There should be suitable effective-target
>>>> tests you can use.
>>>>
>>>> jeff