Hi Jeff,
Can you please confirm if the patch is Ok?
Thanks,
Cupertino
> Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches writes:
>
>> Thank you for the comments and suggestions.
>> I have changed the patch.
>>
>> Unfortunately in case of rx target I could not make
>> scan-assembler-symbol-section to match. I believe it is because the
>> .section and .global entries order is reversed in this target.
>>
>> Patch in inlined below. looking forward to your comments.
>>
>> Cupertino
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c
>> index 63363a03b9f..82b4cd88ec0 100644
>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c
>> @@ -2,9 +2,10 @@
>> sections.
>>
>> { dg-require-effective-target elf }
>> - { dg-do compile } */
>> + { dg-do compile }
>> + { dg-skip-if "" { ! const_volatile_readonly_section } } */
>>
>> const volatile int foo = 30;
>>
>> -
>> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "\\.s\?rodata" } } */
>> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler {.section C,} { target { rx-*-* } } } } */
>> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-symbol-section {^_?foo$}
>> {^\.(const|s?rodata)} { target { ! "rx-*-*" } } } } */
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
>> b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
>> index c0694af2338..91aafd89909 100644
>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
>> @@ -12295,3 +12295,13 @@ proc check_is_prog_name_available { prog } {
>>
>> return 1
>> }
>> +
>> +# returns 1 if target does selects a readonly section for const volatile
>> variables.
>> +proc check_effective_target_const_volatile_readonly_section { } {
>> +
>> + if { [istarget powerpc-*-*]
>> + || [check-flags { "" { powerpc64-*-* } { -m32 } }] } {
>> + return 0
>> + }
>> + return 1
>> +}
>>
>>
>> Jeff Law writes:
>>
>>> On 12/7/22 08:45, Cupertino Miranda wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/2/22 10:52, Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>>>>> This commit is a follow up of bugzilla #107181.
>>>>>> The commit /a0aafbc/ changed the default implementation of the
>>>>>> SELECT_SECTION hook in order to match clang/llvm behaviour w.r.t the
>>>>>> placement of `const volatile' objects.
>>>>>> However, the following targets use target-specific selection functions
>>>>>> and they choke on the testcase pr25521.c:
>>>>>> *rx - target sets its const variables as '.section C,"a",@progbits'.
>>>>> That's presumably a constant section. We should instead twiddle the test
>>>>> to
>>>>> recognize that section.
>>>> Although @progbits is indeed a constant section, I believe it is
>>>> more interesting to detect if the `rx' starts selecting more
>>>> standard sections instead of the current @progbits.
>>>> That was the reason why I opted to XFAIL instead of PASSing it.
>>>> Can I keep it as such ?
>>> I'm not aware of any ongoing development for that port, so I would not let
>>> concerns about the rx port changing behavior dominate how we approach this
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> The rx port is using a different name for the section. That's valid thing
>>> to
>>> do and to the extent we can, we should support that in the test rather than
>>> (incorrectly IMHO) xfailing the test just becuase the name isn't what we
>>> expected.
>>>
>>> To avoid over-eagerly matching, I would probably search for "C," I
>>> wouldn't do
>>> that for the const or rodata sections as they often have a suffix like 1,
>>> 2, 4,
>>> 8 for different sized rodata sections.
>>>
>>> PPC32 is explicitly doing something different and placing those objects
>>> into an
>>> RW section. So for PPC32 it makes more sense to skip the test rather than
>>> xfail
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Jeff
