Re: [PATCH] Ver.2: Add compile option "-msmall-data-limit=0" to avoid using .srodata section for riscv.

[Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:50:00 PST (-0800), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
>
> On 11/17/22 02:53, Yixuan Chen wrote:
>> 2022-11-17  Yixuan Chen  <chenyixuan@iscas.ac.cn>
>>
>>          * gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c: Add compile option "-msmall-data-limit=0" to avoid using .srodata section for riscv.
>> ---
>>   gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c | 3 ++-
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c
>> index 74fe2ae6626..628ddf1a761 100644
>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c
>> @@ -2,7 +2,8 @@
>>      sections.
>>
>>      { dg-require-effective-target elf }
>> -   { dg-do compile } */
>> +   { dg-do compile }
>> +   { dg-options "-msmall-data-limit=0" { target { riscv*-*-* } } } */
>>
>>   const volatile int foo = 30;
>>
>
> Wouldn't this be better?  It avoids a target specific conditional by
> instead extending what we look for to cover [s]rodata sections.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jeff
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c
> index 74fe2ae6626..63363a03b9f 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c
> @@ -7,4 +7,4 @@
>  const volatile int foo = 30;
>
>
> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "\\.rodata" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "\\.s\?rodata" } } */

That's how I usually do it for these tests, there's some other targets 
with sdata too so it fixes the test for everyone.  IIRC I said something 
like that in the v1, but sorry if I'm just getting it confused with some 
other patch.

There's a few of these that need to get chased down for every release, 
maybe we should add some sort of DG hepler?  Not sure that'd keep folks 
from matching on .data, though...