This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [patch 4/4] -fstrict-volatile-bitfields cleanup v3: remove from defaults on all targets

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Joseph S. Myers <> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2013, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 01/09/13 14:10, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> > IMHO the AAPCS forbids packed structures. Therefore we need not
>> > interfere with the C++ memory model if we have unaligned data.
>> The AAPCS neither forbids nor requires packed structures.  They're a GNU
>> extension and as such not part of standard C++.  Thus the semantics of
>> such an operation are irrelavant to the AAPCS: you get to chose what the
>> behaviour is in this case...
> The trouble is that AAPCS semantics are incompatible with the default GNU
> semantics for non-packed structures as well - AAPCS
> strict-volatile-bitfields is only compatible with --param
> allow-store-data-races=1, which is not the default for any language
> variant accepted by GCC (and I say that the default language semantics
> here should not depend on the target architecture).

As I said it should be easy to fulfil AAPCS requirements if they do not violate
language constrains during code generation and thus warn about accesses
that are emitted in a way not conforming to AAPCS (a warning at struct
declaration time would be nicer, but I guess requires more coding and thought,
though at the point we compute DECL_BIT_FIELD_REPRESENTATIVE in
stor-layout.c would be a suitable place).


> --
> Joseph S. Myers

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]