This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: ipa-visibility TLC 2/n
- From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- To: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- Cc: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, ramrad01 at arm dot com
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 09:08:03 +0100
- Subject: Re: ipa-visibility TLC 2/n
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAGWvnykpdrmfigAjx+gXghA7iWx0mo4_7V1YaAhWMh9OQdx14A at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140528223103 dot GB15880 at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <CAGWvnynmW2d7S=fDWOE0g7CKfcO=y+p0v4=0jwhTAuOx+pVbYQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140528231723 dot GA31990 at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz> writes:
>> Richard Sandiford wrote the original section anchors implementation,
>> so he would be a good person to comment about the interaction between
>> aliases and section anchors.
>
> Thanks! Richard, does this patch seem sane?
Looks good to me in principle, but with:
> + struct symtab_node *snode;
> decl = SYMBOL_REF_DECL (symbol);
> +
> + snode = symtab_node (decl);
> + if (snode->alias)
> + {
> + rtx target = DECL_RTL (symtab_alias_ultimate_target (snode)->decl);
> + SYMBOL_REF_BLOCK_OFFSET (symbol) = SYMBOL_REF_BLOCK_OFFSET (target);
> + return;
> + }
is SYMBOL_REF_BLOCK_OFFSET (target) guaranteed to be valid at this point?
It looked at face value like you'd need a recursive call to place_block_symbol
on the target before the copy.
Thanks,
Richard