>> + else if (SYMBOL_REF_HAS_BLOCK_INFO_P (sym) >> >> This test makes sense. >> >> + && SYMBOL_REF_ANCHOR_P (sym) >> >> Do we need this test or is the patch being conservative? I would >> have thought that it is sufficient to drop this test and just take the >> block alignment... >> > Thanks for the review. > > If I understand gcc/rtl.h correctly, SYMBOL_REF_ANCHOR_P (sym) is > required for anchor SYMBOL_REFS. SYMBOL_REF_BLOCK (sym) != NULL is > probably redundant. This can probably become an gcc_assert > (SYMBOL_REF_BLOCK (sym)) instead.
I agree with your interpretation of the code and comments in rtl.h. I also accept that SYMBOL_REF_ANCHOR_P() is sufficient to resolve the test case. However I'm wondering why we need to constraint the test down to SYMBOL_REF_ANCHOR_P(). At this point in the code we are trying to find alignment of the object, if we have a SYMBOL_REF_BLOCK then we can get the block alignment irrespective of SYMBOL_REF_ANCHOR_P(). Cheers /Marcus
