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>
- Cc: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 03:51:23 +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>,<201310212051 dot r9LKpwSn018545 at greed dot delorie dot com>
>> 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?
Yes, there are two written specifications which are in conflict
AAPCS and C++11. We cannot follow both at the same time.
But from this discussion I've learned, that your target's requirements
can easily co-exist with the C++ memory model.
Because if you only use well-formed bit-fields, the C++ memory
model just allows everything, and we can choose what to do.