This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: -fstrict-volatile-bitfields fixes

On 12/6/2010 6:14 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:

> I don't think so. If a program requests the old ABI, and volatile
> bitfields do not work with the old ABI, we can conclude that the program
> does not use volatile bitfields.

Well, maybe so.  But, support for a couple of the architectures that DJ
mentioned post-dates the older ABI versions.  My feeling is that older
versions of the ABI were buggy, so the only reason to support them is
backwards compatibility.  If GCC support post-dates the ABI, there's no
reason to provide that backwards compatibility.

> In any case, I think the patch is a reasonable starting point, and
> target maintainers can change behavior if they see fit. Ok to commit, or
> what specific changes should I make?

I guess we need to settle the question above before we can figure that out?

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]