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, rohitarul...@freescale.com <rohitarul...@freescale.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alan Modra [mailto:amo...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 11:52 AM >> To: Dharmakan Rohit-B30502 >> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; dje....@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, rohitarul...@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 >
