Thank you for the comments and suggestions.
I have changed the patch.
Unfortunately in case of rx target I could not make
scan-assembler-symbol-section to match. I believe it is because the
.section and .global entries order is reversed in this target.
Patch in inlined below. looking forward to your comments.
Cupertino
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c
index 63363a03b9f..82b4cd88ec0 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr25521.c
@@ -2,9 +2,10 @@
sections.
{ dg-require-effective-target elf }
- { dg-do compile } */
+ { dg-do compile }
+ { dg-skip-if "" { ! const_volatile_readonly_section } } */
const volatile int foo = 30;
-
-/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "\\.s\?rodata" } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler {.section C,} { target { rx-*-* } } } } */
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-symbol-section {^_?foo$} {^\.(const|s?rodata)} { target { ! "rx-*-*" } } } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
index c0694af2338..91aafd89909 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
@@ -12295,3 +12295,13 @@ proc check_is_prog_name_available { prog } {
return 1
}
+
+# returns 1 if target does selects a readonly section for const volatile variables.
+proc check_effective_target_const_volatile_readonly_section { } {
+
+ if { [istarget powerpc-*-*]
+ || [check-flags { "" { powerpc64-*-* } { -m32 } }] } {
+ return 0
+ }
+ return 1
+}
Jeff Law writes:
> On 12/7/22 08:45, Cupertino Miranda wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/2/22 10:52, Cupertino Miranda via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>>> This commit is a follow up of bugzilla #107181.
>>>> The commit /a0aafbc/ changed the default implementation of the
>>>> SELECT_SECTION hook in order to match clang/llvm behaviour w.r.t the
>>>> placement of `const volatile' objects.
>>>> However, the following targets use target-specific selection functions
>>>> and they choke on the testcase pr25521.c:
>>>> *rx - target sets its const variables as '.section C,"a",@progbits'.
>>> That's presumably a constant section. We should instead twiddle the test to
>>> recognize that section.
>> Although @progbits is indeed a constant section, I believe it is
>> more interesting to detect if the `rx' starts selecting more
>> standard sections instead of the current @progbits.
>> That was the reason why I opted to XFAIL instead of PASSing it.
>> Can I keep it as such ?
> I'm not aware of any ongoing development for that port, so I would not let
> concerns about the rx port changing behavior dominate how we approach this
> problem.
>
> The rx port is using a different name for the section. That's valid thing to
> do and to the extent we can, we should support that in the test rather than
> (incorrectly IMHO) xfailing the test just becuase the name isn't what we
> expected.
>
> To avoid over-eagerly matching, I would probably search for "C," I wouldn't
> do
> that for the const or rodata sections as they often have a suffix like 1, 2,
> 4,
> 8 for different sized rodata sections.
>
> PPC32 is explicitly doing something different and placing those objects into
> an
> RW section. So for PPC32 it makes more sense to skip the test rather than
> xfail
> it.
>
> Jeff
