On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This patch tightens the conditions on when assemble_external() may be
> called. It also removes a comment that "most platforms do not define
> ASM_OUTPUT_EXTERNAL", because hasn't been true since r119764 added a
> definition of ASM_OUTPUT_EXTERNAL to elfos.h.
>
> This is the first step toward addressing PR17982 on the trunk for GCC
> 4.8. The next step is to change pending_assemble_externals to
> pending_assemble_visibility, and fold assemble_external_real() back
> into assemble_external.
>
> But first, this patch. I don't think this is very risky, because GCC
> now always works in unit-at-a-time mode. But I think it would be good
> to have this on the trunk for a week or so before proceeding.
>
> Bootstrapped & tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk?
Ok. Though I wonder why callers cannot simply push these decls to
the pending varpool queue and we might do a final run over it,
assembling things? [or why we call assemble_external that late at all ...]
Richard.
> Ciao!
> Steven
>
>
>
> * varasm.c (assemble_external): Assert this function is only called
> during or after expanding to RTL.
>
> Index: varasm.c
> ===================================================================
> --- varasm.c (revision 185762)
> +++ varasm.c (working copy)
> @@ -2166,12 +2166,18 @@ static GTY(()) tree weak_decls;
> void
> assemble_external (tree decl ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
> {
> - /* Because most platforms do not define ASM_OUTPUT_EXTERNAL, the
> - main body of this code is only rarely exercised. To provide some
> - testing, on all platforms, we make sure that the ASM_OUT_FILE is
> - open. If it's not, we should not be calling this function. */
> + /* Make sure that the ASM_OUT_FILE is open.
> + If it's not, we should not be calling this function. */
> gcc_assert (asm_out_file);
>
> + /* This function should only be called if we are expanding, or have
> + expanded, to RTL.
> + Ideally, only final.c would be calling this function, but it is
> + not clear whether that would break things somehow. See PR 17982
> + for further discussion. */
> + gcc_assert (cgraph_state == CGRAPH_STATE_EXPANSION
> + || cgraph_state == CGRAPH_STATE_FINISHED);
> +
> if (!DECL_P (decl) || !DECL_EXTERNAL (decl) || !TREE_PUBLIC (decl))
> return;
