On 12/03/14 20:07, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
> Hi Kugan
>
>
> On 3 March 2014 21:56, Kugan <kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> gcc/
>>
>> 2014-03-03 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
>>
>> PR target/60034
>> * aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_classify_address): Fix alignment for
>> section anchor.
>>
>>
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/
>>
>> 2014-03-03 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
>>
>> PR target/60034
>> * gcc.target/aarch64/pr60034.c: New file.
>>
>
> + else if (SYMBOL_REF_HAS_BLOCK_INFO_P (sym)
>
> This test makes sense.
>
> + && SYMBOL_REF_ANCHOR_P (sym)
>
> Do we need this test or is the patch being conservative? I would
> have thought that it is sufficient to drop this test and just take the
> block alignment...
>
Thanks for the review.
If I understand gcc/rtl.h correctly, SYMBOL_REF_ANCHOR_P (sym) is
required for anchor SYMBOL_REFS. SYMBOL_REF_BLOCK (sym) != NULL is
probably redundant. This can probably become an gcc_assert
(SYMBOL_REF_BLOCK (sym)) instead.
> + && SYMBOL_REF_BLOCK (sym) != NULL)
> + align = SYMBOL_REF_BLOCK (sym)->alignment;
>
> +/* { dg-options "-std=gnu99 -fgnu89-inline -O -Wall -Winline
> -Wwrite-strings -fmerge-all-constants -frounding-math -g
> -Wstrict-prototypes" } */
>
> Can you drop all the options that are not actually required to
> reproduce the issue?
I will change it.
Thanks,
Kugan
