On 18 November 2017 at 22:13, Nathan Rossi <nat...@nathanrossi.com> wrote: > On 18 November 2017 at 04:25, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 11/15/2017 11:58 PM, Nathan Rossi wrote: >>> Remove the MicroBlaze specific TARGET_ASM_OUTPUT_IDENT definition, and >>> use the default. >>> >>> This resolves issues associated with the use of the .sdata2 operation in >>> cases where emitted assembly after the ident output is incorrectly in >>> the .sdata2 section instead of .text or any other expected section. >>> Which results in assembly failures including operations with symbols >>> across different segments. >>> >>> gcc/ChangeLog >>> >>> 2017-11-16 Nathan Rossi <nat...@nathanrossi.com> >>> >>> PR target/83013 >>> * config/microblaze/microblaze-protos.h >>> (microblaze_asm_output_ident): Delete >>> * config/microblaze/microblaze.c (microblaze_asm_output_ident): Delete >>> * config/microblaze/microblaze.h (TARGET_ASM_OUTPUT_IDENT): Default >> But isn't the purpose of the override to force certain small-enough >> objects into the .sdata2 section and by removing the override aren't you >> losing that capability? >> >> It does seem like the override is broken in that it changes the current >> section behind the back of the generic code. >> >> Wouldn't a better fix be to ensure that the override arranges to switch >> back to whatever the current section is? Perhaps using .pushsection and >> .popsection would help here? >> > > That would be a better fix, however I sent this change first as it > seemed it might be preferred to remove the target specific behavior > instead of fixing it. Since it is the only target that actually uses > the TARGET_ASM_OUTPUT_IDENT to change the output asm content (others > either define the default or have a function that calls the default). > > But I can sort out a patch that fixes the behavior instead if that is > preferred?
Ping. Should I sort out a patch which uses the push/pop of the section or is this patch preferred? Regards, Nathan
