>> 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().
Thanks for the explanation. Is the attached patch looks OK ?
Thanks,
Kugan
gcc/
2014-03-25 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <[email protected]>
PR target/60034
* aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_classify_address): Fix alignment for
section anchor.
gcc/testsuite/
2014-03-25 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <[email protected]>
PR target/60034
* gcc.target/aarch64/pr60034.c: New file.
diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
index 57b6645..7d2d10c 100644
--- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
+++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
@@ -3193,6 +3193,9 @@ aarch64_classify_address (struct aarch64_address_info
*info,
}
else if (SYMBOL_REF_DECL (sym))
align = DECL_ALIGN (SYMBOL_REF_DECL (sym));
+ else if (SYMBOL_REF_HAS_BLOCK_INFO_P (sym)
+ && SYMBOL_REF_BLOCK (sym) != NULL)
+ align = SYMBOL_REF_BLOCK (sym)->alignment;
else
align = BITS_PER_UNIT;
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/pr60034.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/pr60034.c
index e69de29..ab7e7f4 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/pr60034.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/pr60034.c
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-std=gnu99 -O" } */
+
+static unsigned long global_max_fast;
+
+void __libc_mallopt (int param_number, int value)
+{
+ __asm__ __volatile__ ("# %[_SDT_A21]" :: [_SDT_A21] "nor"
((global_max_fast)));
+ global_max_fast = 1;
+}
