This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: patch: honor volatile bitfield types
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com>
- To: dj at redhat dot com
- Cc: hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 17:13:23 +0200
- Subject: Re: patch: honor volatile bitfield types
(I wrote:)
> > Can we similarly promise or say something for accesses of the
> > containing struct as a whole?
No takers?
> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:34:04 -0400
> From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
> Should be the same as before, I would think.
Primarily I want them similarly defined. I wasn't expecting
those access to be actually changed by your patches. Of course
it'd be nice if they could tag along. :) The first step is this:
to check if anyone is against them being well-defined (in GNU C
terms, of course not in ISO C terms), and perhaps whether people
believe that it's obvious one way (like I do) or the other (like
it seemed other people did).
Thanks BTW, for pushing through the subject as well as the patches. :)
brgds, H-P
PS. Happy midsummer!