This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [PATCH] reimplement -fstrict-volatile-bitfields v4, part 2/2
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Bernd Edlinger <bernd dot edlinger at hotmail dot de>,DJ Delorie <dj at redhat 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 14:54:02 +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> <DUB122-W17174F1C4504E17E6C5B79E4000 at phx dot gbl>
Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>>> 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.
Yes. You could also make it -fstrict-volatile-bitfields={off,gnu,aacps} if you think that's better.
Richard.
>
>Bernd.