On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 9:40 AM Kewen.Lin <li...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Andreas,
>
> on 2023/5/25 15:25, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> > On 3/20/23 07:33, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> One of my workmates found there is a warning like:
> >>
> >> libgcc/config/rs6000/morestack.S:402: Warning: ignoring
> >> incorrect section type for .init_array.00000
> >>
> >> when compiling libgcc/config/rs6000/morestack.S.
> >>
> >> Since commit r13-6545 touched that file recently, which was
> >> suspected to be responsible for this warning, I did some
> >> investigation and found this is a warning staying for a long
> >> time. For section .init_stack*, it's preferred to use
> >> section type SHT_INIT_ARRAY. So this patch is use
> >> "@init_array" to replace "@progbits".
> >>
> >> Although the warning is trivial, Segher suggested me to
> >> post this to fix it, in order to avoid any possible
> >> misunderstanding/confusion on the warning.
> >>
> >> As Alan confirmed, this doesn't require a premise check
> >> on if the existing binutils supports "@init_array" or not,
> >> "because if you want split-stack to work, you must link
> >> with gold, any version of binutils that has gold has an
> >> assembler that understands @init_array". (Thanks Alan!)
> >>
> >> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-redhat-linux
> >> and powerpc64{,le}-linux-gnu.
> >>
> >> Is it ok for trunk when next stage 1 comes?
> >>
> >> BR,
> >> Kewen
> >> -----
> >> libgcc/ChangeLog:
> >>
> >> * config/i386/morestack.S: Use @init_array rather than
> >> @progbits for section type of section .init_array.
> >> * config/rs6000/morestack.S: Likewise.
> >> * config/s390/morestack.S: Likewise.
> >
> > s390 parts are ok. I did run a bootstrap and regression. Looks all good.
> > Thanks!
>
> Thanks for testing this on s390, really appreciate!
>
> Hi Ian & Uros,
>
> Do you have any concerns on this, or does it look good to you?
LGTM, but morestack.S is mostly used for Go, so I'd defer to Ian for
the final approval.
Uros.
