This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: bitfields: types vs modes?
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 14:02:16 -0700
- Subject: Re: bitfields: types vs modes?
- References: <200903100433.n2A4XKNL011948@greed.delorie.com> <200904010511.n315Ba28010006@greed.delorie.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <49DA30F0.email@example.com> <200904062003.n36K3WHc001273@greed.delorie.com> <49DA689F.firstname.lastname@example.org> <200905201948.n4KJmv4N017890@greed.delorie.com>
DJ Delorie <email@example.com> writes:
> We seem to have dropped this discussion. I now have *two* customers
> asking for this functionality. Can we pick it up again? We need to
> 1. If the functionality will be allowed in gcc at all
> 2. What info the target needs to be provided to make the choices it wants
> 3. What, if any, common code can be shared between the CPUs
Since the ARM ABI apparently specifies something about volatile
bitfields, I think we ought to implement that.
I continue to think that a sane programmer would use a different
mechanism. C/C++ provides mechanisms for working with memory mapped
hardware. Bitfields are not one of those mechanisms.