>> 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. > > I agree with your interpretation of the code and comments in rtl.h. I > also accept that SYMBOL_REF_ANCHOR_P() is sufficient to resolve the > test case. However I'm wondering why we need to constraint the test > down to SYMBOL_REF_ANCHOR_P(). At this point in the code we are > trying to find alignment of the object, if we have a SYMBOL_REF_BLOCK > then we can get the block alignment irrespective of > SYMBOL_REF_ANCHOR_P().
Thanks for the explanation. Is the attached patch looks OK ? Thanks, Kugan gcc/ 2014-03-25 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org> PR target/60034 * aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_classify_address): Fix alignment for section anchor. gcc/testsuite/ 2014-03-25 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org> PR target/60034 * gcc.target/aarch64/pr60034.c: New file.
diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c index 57b6645..7d2d10c 100644 --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c @@ -3193,6 +3193,9 @@ aarch64_classify_address (struct aarch64_address_info *info, } else if (SYMBOL_REF_DECL (sym)) align = DECL_ALIGN (SYMBOL_REF_DECL (sym)); + else if (SYMBOL_REF_HAS_BLOCK_INFO_P (sym) + && SYMBOL_REF_BLOCK (sym) != NULL) + align = SYMBOL_REF_BLOCK (sym)->alignment; else align = BITS_PER_UNIT; diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/pr60034.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/pr60034.c index e69de29..ab7e7f4 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/pr60034.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/pr60034.c @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-options "-std=gnu99 -O" } */ + +static unsigned long global_max_fast; + +void __libc_mallopt (int param_number, int value) +{ + __asm__ __volatile__ ("# %[_SDT_A21]" :: [_SDT_A21] "nor" ((global_max_fast))); + global_max_fast = 1; +}