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

From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: bernds at codesourcery dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 01:04:42 -0500
Subject: Re: -fstrict-volatile-bitfields fixes
References: <4CF7F356.8020506@t-online.de> <201012030035.oB30ZTlm012879@greed.delorie.com> <4CFBDC22.2080409@codesourcery.com> <4CFCD38F.1040500@codesourcery.com> <4CFD887C.8010202@codesourcery.com>

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

My concern was about adding code that isn't neccessary, and perhaps
irrelevent, and perhaps even misleading.  I don't think the proposed
patch would *break* things for an unwary user, as they just wouldn't
use the -fabi option.

References:
- -fstrict-volatile-bitfields fixes
  - From: Bernd Schmidt
- Re: -fstrict-volatile-bitfields fixes
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: -fstrict-volatile-bitfields fixes
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: -fstrict-volatile-bitfields fixes
  - From: Bernd Schmidt
- Re: -fstrict-volatile-bitfields fixes
  - From: Mark Mitchell

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]