Nathan Froyd <froy...@codesourcery.com> wrote on 2010/12/01 18:33:23:
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 08:04:06PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Why is not
> > const char cstr[] = "mystr";
> > const int myint = 3;
> > added to a read only section?
> > Especially since
> > const int myarr[]={1,2,3};
> > is placed in .rodata.
> >
> > hmm, -G 0 does place these in .rodata but why do I have to specify that?
>
> It would help if you specified the target and the compiler version that
> you used.
ppc32(e300c2), gcc 4.4.5
>
> The compiler I have (~4.5) places myint and mystr in .sdata; since
> they're so small, GCC thinks that placing myint and mystr in .sdata is
> beneficial. Why do you think -G 0 should be the default?
I don't, I just noticed that -G 0 changed this into .rodata
>
> It does seem kind of odd that "mystr" is placed in .sdata, since
> rs6000_elf_in_small_data_p indicates that string constants shouldn't be
> in .sdata. You could investigate and submit a patch or file a bug.
I am just surprised that gcc doesn't place RO data into a RO section
by default. As is now there is no protection against actually
modifying small const data.
Jocke
