This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [PATCH] reimplement -fstrict-volatile-bitfields v4, part 2/2
- From: Bernd Edlinger <bernd dot edlinger at hotmail dot de>
- To: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "sandra at codesourcery dot com" <sandra at codesourcery dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 07:12:28 +0200
- Subject: RE: [PATCH] reimplement -fstrict-volatile-bitfields v4, part 2/2
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52463D60 dot 8040607 at codesourcery dot com>,<201309302018 dot r8UKIU9g004905 at greed dot delorie dot com>,<DUB122-W29B621BE86DA0D30377F19E41D0 at phx dot gbl> <CAFiYyc21j3z7B8T+DRg+NFKLEztav4Y1sWX7a5w+VMtc6e1oug at mail dot gmail dot com>,<201310181821 dot r9IILNu5001180 at greed dot delorie dot com>
>> What I would suggest is to have a -fgnu-strict-volatile-bit-fields
> Why a new option? The -fstrict-volatile-bitfields option is already
> GCC-specific, and I think it can do what you want anyway.
As I understand Richard's comment, he proposes to
have an option for true AAPCS compliance, which will
be allowed to break the C++11 memory model and
which will _not_ be the default on any target.
Name it -fstrict-volatile-bitfields.
And an option that addresses your requirements,
which will _not_ break the C++11 memory model
and which will be the default on some targets,
dependent on the respective ABI requirements.
Name it -fgnu-strict-volatile-bit-fields.