This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [Patch, PR 60158] gcc/varasm.c : Pass actual alignment value to output_constant_pool_2
- From: "rohitarulraj at freescale dot com" <rohitarulraj at freescale dot com>
- To: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 11:16:22 +0000
- Subject: RE: [Patch, PR 60158] gcc/varasm.c : Pass actual alignment value to output_constant_pool_2
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp dot mailfrom=rohitarulraj at freescale dot com;
- References: <d0a7b88818ff4272a92e2cd6b49f12f5 at DM2PR03MB352 dot namprd03 dot prod dot outlook dot com> <20140426062213 dot GJ3397 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <e7964a02fc324c9c8ffcd42a1f633036 at DM2PR03MB352 dot namprd03 dot prod dot outlook dot com> <CAGWvnymad+EYOauZ9dBj6eh7T2m8scMkVjjmJCjHauDhwM6vUA at mail dot gmail dot com>
Ping.
I have changed the subject line accordingly.
Regards,
Rohit
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Edelsohn [mailto:dje.gcc@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 9:28 PM
> To: Dharmakan Rohit-B30502; Jakub Jelinek; Richard Biener
> Cc: Alan Modra; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Wienskoski Edmar-RA8797
> Subject: Re: [Patch, PR 60158] Generate .fixup sections for
> .data.rel.ro.local entries.
>
> Rohit,
>
> The subject line and thread may confuse people that this is a PowerPC-
> specific issue. You need approval from a reviewer with authority over
> varasm.c.
>
> Thanks, David
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:54 AM, rohitarulraj@freescale.com
> <rohitarulraj@freescale.com> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Alan Modra [mailto:amodra@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 11:52 AM
> >> To: Dharmakan Rohit-B30502
> >> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; dje.gcc@gmail.com; Wienskoski
> >> Edmar-RA8797
> >> Subject: Re: [Patch, PR 60158] Generate .fixup sections for
> >> .data.rel.ro.local entries.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 02:57:38PM +0000, rohitarulraj@freescale.com
> >> wrote:
> >> > Source file: gcc-4.8.2/gcc/varasm.c @@ -7120,7 +7120,7 @@
> >> > if (CONSTANT_POOL_ADDRESS_P (symbol))
> >> > {
> >> > desc = SYMBOL_REF_CONSTANT (symbol);
> >> > output_constant_pool_1 (desc, 1);
> >> ------------- (A)
> >> > offset += GET_MODE_SIZE (desc->mode);
> >>
> >> I think the reason 1 is passed here for align is that with -fsection-
> >> anchors, in output_object_block we've already laid out everything in
> >> the block, assigning offsets from the start of the block. Aligning
> >> shouldn't be necessary, because we've already done that.. OTOH, it
> >> shouldn't hurt to align again.
> >>
> > Thanks. I have tested for both the cases on e500v2, e500mc, e5500,
> ppc64 (GCC v4.8.2 branch) with no regressions.
> >
> > Patch1 [gcc.fix_pr60158_fixup_table-fsf]: Pass actual alignment value
> to output_constant_pool_2.
> > Patch2 [gcc.fix_pr60158_fixup_table-fsf-2]: Use the alignment data
> available in the first argument (constant_descriptor_rtx) of
> output_constant_pool_1.
> > (Note: this generates ".align" directive twice).
> >
> > Is it ok to commit? Any comments?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rohit
> >