This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] reimplement -fstrict-volatile-bitfields v4, part 2/2
- From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- To: Bernd Edlinger <bernd dot edlinger at hotmail dot de>
- Cc: richard dot guenther at gmail dot com, sandra at codesourcery dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:51:58 -0400
- 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>
> have an option for true AAPCS compliance, which will
> be allowed to break the C++11 memory model and
> And an option that addresses your requirements,
> which will _not_ break the C++11 memory model
So the problem isn't that what *I* need conflicts with C++11, it's
that what AAPCS needs conflicts?