http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545
--- Comment #5 from Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram at google dot com> 2012-03-09 21:30:54 UTC --- On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:27 PM, gjl at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545 > > --- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay <gjl at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-03-09 > 20:27:42 UTC --- > (In reply to comment #3) >> Right, I was not looking at SECTION_MACH_DEP when I defined the macro. Is it >> ok >> to just bump SECTION_MACH_DEP? >> >> The patch I have in mind is: >> >> -#define SECTION_MACH_DEP 0x2000000 /* subsequent bits reserved for target */ >> -#define SECTION_EXCLUDE 0x4000000 >> +#define SECTION_EXCLUDE 0x2000000 >> +#define SECTION_MACH_DEP 0x8000000 /* subsequent bits reserved for target */ >> >> I can bump SECTION_MACH_DEP even more to reserve more bits. > > The reserved bits start at SECTION_MACH_DEP, with the patch above you just > waste the bit at 0x4000000. I thought I will leave some bits for future flags but I guess whoever adds a flag can also bump SECTION_MACH_DEP. I will send a patch to fix this. Thanks, -Sri. > > Any bits covered by > SECTION_MACH_DEP * (~0) > are reserved for the machine. The bigger SECTION_MACH_DEP is, the less bits > are > left for machine specific needs. > > Machine specific section flag masks could be, e.g.: > > #define SECTION_FLAG_MACH_1 (SECTION_MACH_DEP) > #define SECTION_FLAG_MACH_2 (SECTION_MACH_DEP << 1) > #define SECTION_FLAG_MACH_3 (SECTION_MACH_DEP << 2) > ... > > -- > Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You are on the CC list for the bug.
