This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Volatile bitfields vs. inline asm memory constraints
- From: Julian Brown <julian at codesourcery dot com>
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:10:09 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Volatile bitfields vs. inline asm memory constraints
- References: <20101122132854.0aca431a@rex.config> <201011302143.oAULhl2S027972@greed.delorie.com> <20101201165152.638bc798@rex.config>
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 16:51:52 +0000
Julian Brown <julian@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:43:47 -0500
> DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > The key thing to check is if you have this field:
> >
> > int a:8;
> >
> > and it's 8-bit aligned anyway, that you still do an int-sized and
> > int-aligned access.
>
> I think this is fine: I checked the attached program with
> -fstrict-volatile-bitfields, both with and without my patch, and
> there's no change in generated assembly (which looks like it's doing
> the right thing, using container-sized accesses in each case, with
> read-modify-write where necessary).
Ping^2?
Thanks,
Julian