On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 08:47:02AM -0500, will schmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-05-07 at 12:19 +0930, Alan Modra via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > --- a/gcc/varasm.c
> > +++ b/gcc/varasm.c
> > @@ -6866,6 +6866,26 @@ default_elf_asm_named_section (const char
> > *name, unsigned int flags,
> > *f = '\0';
> > }
> >
> > + char func_label[256];
> > + if (flags & SECTION_LINK_ORDER)
> > + {
> > + static int recur;
> > + if (recur)
> > + gcc_unreachable ();
>
> Interesting.. Is there any anticipation of re-entry or parallel runs
> through this function that requires the recur lock/protection?
Not parallel runs :-) But:
> > + else
> > + {
> > + ++recur;
> > + section *save_section = in_section;
> > + static int func_code_labelno;
> > + switch_to_section (function_section (decl));
This could in theory call us again. That should not be a problem, if
> > + ++func_code_labelno;
(Please use postfix increments btw)
...this is done *before* the call, so that we get two different labels.
Segher
