| Message ID | 709f0814-5879-d291-4828-1ba664be3efd@foss.arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Hi Thomas, On 11/04/17 18:35, Thomas Preudhomme wrote: > Hi, > > Several tests started failing for ARM targets (eg. gcc.dg/initpri1.c) > after change 6f9dbcd42f2cf034a9a21f46842c08d2e88449db in binutils. This > is because the non-default priority init_array and fini_array sections > are not created with NOTYPE flag as is the case for default priority > init_array and fini_array sections (see default_section_type_flags in > varasm.c for instance). This patch fixes the issue. > > ChangeLog entry is as follows: > > *** gcc/ChangeLog *** > > 2017-04-11 Thomas Preud'homme <thomas.preudhomme@arm.com> > > * config/arm/arm.c (arm_elf_asm_cdtor): Create non-default > priority .init_array and .fini_array section with SECTION_NOTYPE > flag. > > Testing: with this patch test gcc.dg/initpri1.c succeeds but fails > without. > > Is this ok for stage4? > This is ok if a bootstrap and test run on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf shows no problems. Thanks, Kyrill > Best regards, > > Thomas
Hi Kyrill, On 19/04/17 10:56, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > On 11/04/17 18:35, Thomas Preudhomme wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Several tests started failing for ARM targets (eg. gcc.dg/initpri1.c) >> after change 6f9dbcd42f2cf034a9a21f46842c08d2e88449db in binutils. This >> is because the non-default priority init_array and fini_array sections >> are not created with NOTYPE flag as is the case for default priority >> init_array and fini_array sections (see default_section_type_flags in >> varasm.c for instance). This patch fixes the issue. >> >> ChangeLog entry is as follows: >> >> *** gcc/ChangeLog *** >> >> 2017-04-11 Thomas Preud'homme <thomas.preudhomme@arm.com> >> >> * config/arm/arm.c (arm_elf_asm_cdtor): Create non-default >> priority .init_array and .fini_array section with SECTION_NOTYPE >> flag. >> >> Testing: with this patch test gcc.dg/initpri1.c succeeds but fails >> without. >> >> Is this ok for stage4? >> > > This is ok if a bootstrap and test run on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf shows no > problems. No issue found, hence committed. Thanks. Best regards, Thomas
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c index a2d80cfd645928fb8b3178a8e0c7173adce5d598..f3a6b64b16896e82d6e7a66726a929f0572542d9 100644 --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.c +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.c @@ -22593,7 +22593,7 @@ arm_elf_asm_cdtor (rtx symbol, int priority, bool is_ctor) sprintf (buf, "%s.%.5u", is_ctor ? ".init_array" : ".fini_array", priority); - s = get_section (buf, SECTION_WRITE, NULL_TREE); + s = get_section (buf, SECTION_WRITE | SECTION_NOTYPE, NULL_TREE); } else if (is_ctor) s = ctors_section;