https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95637
--- Comment #6 from Maciej W. Rozycki ---
Thanks WRT Ada clarification.
Otherwise I don't think there's anything stopping a language definition
from requiring an attempt to modify read-only data to be trapped as an
exceptional condition,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95637
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95637
--- Comment #4 from Maciej W. Rozycki ---
Sigh, I keep forgetting we don't have PC-relative memory access machine
instructions. We could have had base=x0 encodings allocated for that,
which are otherwise of rather limited use.
Regardless, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95637
--- Comment #3 from Jim Wilson ---
People have asked about constant pools before, but as far as I know no one has
tried to implement support for them yet.
We don't have a pc-relative load, so it would be a two instruction sequence
with auipc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95637
--- Comment #2 from Maciej W. Rozycki ---
I think perhaps using constant pools would be the best of both worlds?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95637
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
