[PING] Re: [PATCH 1/2] select .rodata for const volatile variables.

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

Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches writes:

> gentle ping
>
> Cupertino Miranda writes:
>
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> First of all thanks for your quick review.
>> Apologies for the delay replying, the message got lost in my inbox.
>>
>>> On 12/2/22 10:52, Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>>> Changed target code to select .rodata section for 'const volatile'
>>>> defined variables.
>>>> This change is in the context of the bugzilla #170181.
>>>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>>> 	v850.c(v850_select_section): Changed function.
>>> I'm not sure this is safe/correct.  ISTM that you need to look at the underlying
>>> TREE_TYPE to check for const-volatile rather than TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS.
>>
>> I believe this was asked by Jose when he first sent the generic patches.
>> Please notice my change is influenced by his original patch that does
>> the same and was approved.
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-August/599348.html
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-September/602374.html
>>
>>>
>>> Of secondary importance is the ChangeLog.  Just saying "Changed function"
>>> provides no real information.  Something like this would be better:
>>>
>>> 	* config/v850/v850.c (v850_select_section): Put const volatile
>>> 	objects into read-only sections.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>   gcc/config/v850/v850.cc | 1 -
>>>>   1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>>> diff --git a/gcc/config/v850/v850.cc b/gcc/config/v850/v850.cc
>>>> index c7d432990ab..e66893fede4 100644
>>>> --- a/gcc/config/v850/v850.cc
>>>> +++ b/gcc/config/v850/v850.cc
>>>> @@ -2865,7 +2865,6 @@ v850_select_section (tree exp,
>>>>       {
>>>>         int is_const;
>>>>         if (!TREE_READONLY (exp)
>>>> -	  || TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (exp)
>>>>   	  || !DECL_INITIAL (exp)
>>>>   	  || (DECL_INITIAL (exp) != error_mark_node
>>>>   	      && !TREE_CONSTANT (DECL_INITIAL (exp))))