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

[Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>]

On 12/7/22 08:45, Cupertino Miranda wrote:
> 
>> 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 ?
I'm not aware of any ongoing development for that port, so I would not 
let concerns about the rx port changing behavior dominate how we 
approach this problem.

The rx port is using a different name for the section.  That's  valid 
thing to do and to the extent we can, we should support that in the test 
rather than (incorrectly IMHO) xfailing the test just becuase the name 
isn't what we expected.

To avoid over-eagerly matching, I would probably search for "C,"  I 
wouldn't do that for the const or rodata sections as they often have a 
suffix like 1, 2, 4, 8 for different sized rodata sections.

PPC32 is explicitly doing something different and placing those objects 
into an RW section.  So for PPC32 it makes more sense to skip the test 
rather than xfail it.

Jeff