Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The SECTION_NAMED check is redundant; this function only deals with
> named sections. FWIW, I think it would be cleaner to put:
>
> if (((sect->common.flags ^ flags) & SECTION_WRITE) != 0)
> sect->common.flags |= SECTION_WRITE;
>
> before:
>
> if ((sect->common.flags & ~SECTION_DECLARED) != flags
> && ((sect->common.flags | flags) & SECTION_OVERRIDE) == 0)
> {
> /* Sanity check user variables for flag changes. */
> if (decl == 0)
> decl = sect->named.decl;
> gcc_assert (decl);
> error ("%+D causes a section type conflict", decl);
> }
Except that won't work. Sorry, I should engage brain first.
The rest...
> Do we want to still complain when the section has been declared
> (i.e. when SECTION_DECLARED is set)? Or do we just leave that
> to the assembler?
>
> IMO, the system_error.lo case is genuine bug; it's picking a section
> for a read-only variable before marking it as read-only. So for this
> case, I think the patch is actually papering over a real problem.
> (That's not an objection to the patch though.)
...stil stands though.
Richard
