This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [ping] [patch 4/5] fix bugs with -fstrict-volatile-bitfields and packed structures
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 14:31:31 +0200
- Subject: Re: [ping] [patch 4/5] fix bugs with -fstrict-volatile-bitfields and packed structures
- References: <51BE0D45 dot 4070005 at codesourcery dot com> <51C71F82 dot 1020601 at codesourcery dot com>
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Sandra Loosemore
<sandra@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On 06/16/2013 01:08 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>>
>> This part of the patch series fixes problems with bad code being emitted
>> for unaligned bitfield accesses, as reported in PRs 48784, 56341, and
>> 56997. A secondary goal of this patch was making the bitfield store and
>> extract code follow similar logic, at least for the parts relating to
>> -fstrict-volatile-bitfield handling.
>
>
> Is it possible to get this part of the patch series reviewed? Except for
> the documentation change, it is independent of the controversy surrounding
> part 3 regarding whether the target ABI or C/C++ standard should take
> precedence when they conflict, and is independent of any further patches to
> change the default -fstrict-volatile-bitfields setting. If the rest of the
> patch is approved, I'll take care to fix up invoke.texi to accurately
> reflect the behavior of the approved patches before checking anything in.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg00911.html
It looks sensible to me but I'd like to have Eric have a 2nd look as he is most
familiar with this code.
Thanks,
Richard.
> -Sandra
>
>