Re: [PATCH v2] check initializer to be zero in .bss-like sections

On 07/01/2016 03:57 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: Do I need to re-submit, or can I take the above as approved-with- that-change? Ok with that change. Bernd

Re: [PATCH v2] check initializer to be zero in .bss-like sections

>>> On 01.07.16 at 15:44, wrote: > On 07/01/2016 03:42 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 01.07.16 at 15:36, wrote: > >>> Looks ok, except why the empty dg-options string in the testcase? >> >> Because I've seen in it that way in various other test cases

Re: [PATCH v2] check initializer to be zero in .bss-like sections

On 07/01/2016 03:42 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 01.07.16 at 15:36, wrote: Looks ok, except why the empty dg-options string in the testcase? Because I've seen in it that way in various other test cases (and yes, yet others don't have it). I had to decide for one of the

Re: [PATCH v2] check initializer to be zero in .bss-like sections

>>> On 01.07.16 at 15:36, wrote: > On 07/01/2016 10:21 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> Just like gas, which has recently learned to reject such initializers, >> gcc shouldn't accept such either. >> --- >> v2: Use dg-require-named-sections. >> >> gcc/ >> 2016-07-01 Jan Beulich

Re: [PATCH v2] check initializer to be zero in .bss-like sections

On 07/01/2016 10:21 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: Just like gas, which has recently learned to reject such initializers, gcc shouldn't accept such either. --- v2: Use dg-require-named-sections. gcc/ 2016-07-01 Jan Beulich * varasm.c (get_variable_section): Validate

[PATCH v2] check initializer to be zero in .bss-like sections

Just like gas, which has recently learned to reject such initializers, gcc shouldn't accept such either. --- v2: Use dg-require-named-sections. gcc/ 2016-07-01 Jan Beulich * varasm.c (get_variable_section): Validate initializer in named .bss-like sections.