Committed: fix regression and FAILs with "[PATCH] Don't ignore packed on char bitfields (4.0 regression)"

[Adam Nemet <anemet at caviumnetworks dot com>]

Hans-Peter Nilsson writes:
> You should have made sure to test on a target which has packed
> layout by default, as well as a target with #undef PCC_BITFIELD_TYPE_MATTERS.

You're right.  I am very sorry.

> This patch caused pr17112-1.c to regress for cris-elf, and many
> of the new tests FAIL, i.e.:
> 
> Running /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/dg.exp ...
> FAIL: gcc.dg/bitfld-15.c  (test for warnings, line 10)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/bitfld-17.c  (test for warnings, line 9)
> ...
> FAIL: gcc.dg/pr17112-1.c  (test for warnings, line 9)
> 
> and
> 
> Running /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/dg.exp ...
> ...
> FAIL: g++.dg/ext/bitfield2.C  (test for warnings, line 6)
> FAIL: g++.dg/ext/bitfield4.C  (test for warnings, line 5)
> 
> The fix is trivial, as in the patch below.  It's also obvious
> for the new FAILs, but perhaps the regression,
> gcc.dg/pr17112-1.c is a surprise.  Since I think that warning is
> bogus for a default-packed target(*), I'm happy with this
> change, and since at least one maintainer seems to agree, I'm
> all too eager to consider it obvious as well.  Though CC:ing
> Nathan, as he introduced the warning.
> 
> *) See PR38457, which I think your patch solves for the
> bit-field case.  (The attribute isn't ignored, it just doesn't
> affect the layout.)  As a bonus, got rid of all the bogus fp-bit
> warnings!  Still have warnings for non-bitfields, though.
> 
> Committed.

Thanks very much for fixing this and I am glad beside the breakage my patch
did at least something good for CRIS.

Let me know if you need help with what H.J. has just reported.

Adam