This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [ping**n] reimplement -fstrict-volatile-bitfields, v3
- From: Bernd Edlinger <bernd dot edlinger at hotmail dot de>
- To: Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 02:31:39 +0200
- Subject: RE: [ping**n] reimplement -fstrict-volatile-bitfields, v3
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5224DF56 dot 7040901 at codesourcery dot com>
On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 12:56:22 Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> On 09/02/2013 03:10 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Can someone, in a new thread, ping the patches that are still in
>> flight? ISTR having approved bits of some patches before my leave.
> Here's the current state of the patch set I put together. I've lost
> track of where the canonical version of Bernd's followup patch is.
> On 07/09/2013 10:23 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>> On 06/30/2013 09:24 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>>> Here is my third attempt at cleaning up -fstrict-volatile-bitfields.
>>> 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:
>>> 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?
regarding Part 3, I have a small comment on it:
The test programs pr56997-*.c depend on <stdint.h> and other headers.
I stumbled over it because I tried to compile the test programs
with an eCos cross-compiler, and eCos happens to not have "stdint.h".
Many test cases try to avoid all dependencies on include files.
>>> 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
And the warnings part is re-posted here: