Got it, I used to regard this test case as targeting at test if the const
data would use the ".rodata" section.
Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@dabbelt.com> 于2022年11月18日周五 07:59写道：
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 13:50:00 PST (-0800), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > On 11/17/22 02:53, Yixuan Chen wrote:
> >> 2022-11-17 Yixuan Chen <chenyix...@iscas.ac.cn>
> >>
> >> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c: Add compile option
> "-msmall-data-limit=0" to avoid using .srodata section for riscv.
> >> ---
> >> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c | 3 ++-
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c
> >> index 74fe2ae6626..628ddf1a761 100644
> >> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c
> >> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c
> >> @@ -2,7 +2,8 @@
> >> sections.
> >>
> >> { dg-require-effective-target elf }
> >> - { dg-do compile } */
> >> + { dg-do compile }
> >> + { dg-options "-msmall-data-limit=0" { target { riscv*-*-* } } } */
> >>
> >> const volatile int foo = 30;
> >>
> >
> > Wouldn't this be better? It avoids a target specific conditional by
> > instead extending what we look for to cover [s]rodata sections.
> >
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Jeff
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c
> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c
> > index 74fe2ae6626..63363a03b9f 100644
> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c
> > @@ -7,4 +7,4 @@
> > const volatile int foo = 30;
> >
> >
> > -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "\\.rodata" } } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "\\.s\?rodata" } } */
>
> That's how I usually do it for these tests, there's some other targets
> with sdata too so it fixes the test for everyone. IIRC I said something
> like that in the v1, but sorry if I'm just getting it confused with some
> other patch.
>
> There's a few of these that need to get chased down for every release,
> maybe we should add some sort of DG hepler? Not sure that'd keep folks
> from matching on .data, though...
>
