[ping] Re: [patch 0/4] reimplement -fstrict-volatile-bitfields, v3

[Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>]

On 06/30/2013 09:24 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> Here is my third attempt at cleaning up -fstrict-volatile-bitfields.

Ping?

> Part 1 removes the warnings and packedp flag.  It is the same as in the
> last version, and has already been approved.  I'll skip reposting it
> since the patch is here already:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg00908.html
>
> Part 2 replaces parts 2, 3, and 4 in the last version.  I've re-worked
> this code significantly to try to address Bernd Edlinger's comments on
> the last version in PR56997.

Part 2:  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg00001.html

> Part 3 is the test cases, which are the same as in the last version.
> Nobody has reviewed these but I assume they are OK if Part 2 is approved?
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg00912.html
>
> Part 4 is new; it makes -fstrict-volatile-bitfields not be the default
> for any target any more.  It is independent of the other changes.

Part 4:  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg00002.html

It seems that the change to the defaults in part 4 is still 
controversial but my understanding based on discussion of the previous 
version of the patches is that the maintainers were going to insist on 
that as a condition of getting the other bug fixes in.  From my 
perspective, I'd be happy just to wrap up this patch series somehow or 
another, so please let me know if there are additional changes I need to 
make before this is suitable to check in.

-Sandra