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

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

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 ?
>
Jeff: Can you please give me an answer on this ?

Cupertino

>>
>>>   *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