Re: [avr-gcc-list] RE: Patch Fix PR35013, PR27192

[Andy H]

Thanks for feedback.

I asked for it to be committed.

This was from bug - that is what PR35013, 27192 relate too. (search gcc 
bugzilla with number - or Eric's list)

Andy


Dave N6NZ wrote:
> Well, I don't really feel qualified to comment since I'm unfamiliar 
> with gcc internals, but since nobody else seems to be following your 
> progress, I'll throw in my US$0.02
>
> This seems like a simple fix and I can't think of any other test cases 
> that you haven't already addressed.  I say we add it to the "good 
> patch" pile. I don't recall if this came up because of gcc test base 
> analysis or from an avr-gcc user's bug, but I suppose we would want a 
> regression test if we don't have one.
>
> Thanks for you efforts!
>
> -dave
>
> Andy H wrote:
> > I tested it with PROGMEM and it returns byte address (same as now)
> >
> > Tested it with Labels ( ptr = &&foo) and it return word address 
> > (which I intended).
> >
> > I did not test goto *ptr, as I have not loaded patch for jump/long 
> > jump (so its does nothing). I'm  sure my patch for that expects words 
> > so it will not be problem.
> >
> > I have  checked  switch/jump tables. That is un-changed using WORDs,
> >
> > To Summarize:
> >
> > Address of function WORDs
> > Address of function +- offset WORDS with WORD offset
> > Address of normal RAM variable BYTEs
> > Address of PROGMEM variable BYTEs
> > Address of Label WORDS
> > Address used in switch table WORDs
> > Pointer used in goto *ptr  WORDs (TBC)
> >
> > Looks good so far!
> >
> > Comments?