This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[ping**3] Re: [patch 0/4] reimplement -fstrict-volatile-bitfields, v3


On 07/20/2013 01:12 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 07/09/2013 10:23 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 06/30/2013 09:24 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
Here is my third attempt at cleaning up -fstrict-volatile-bitfields.

Ping?

...and ping again.

...and again.  Hmmm.

struct patch_status
  {
    volatile int approved:1;
    volatile int rejected:1;
    volatile int needs_changes:1;
    int pinged;
  };

extern struct patch_status s;

while (!s.approved && !s.rejected && !s.needs_changes)
  {
    sleep (a_week_or_two ());
    pinged++;
  }

Part 1 removes the warnings and packedp flag.  It is the same as in the
last version, and has already been approved.  I'll skip reposting it
since the patch is here already:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg00908.html

Part 2 replaces parts 2, 3, and 4 in the last version.  I've re-worked
this code significantly to try to address Bernd Edlinger's comments on
the last version in PR56997.

Part 2:  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg00001.html

Part 3 is the test cases, which are the same as in the last version.
Nobody has reviewed these but I assume they are OK if Part 2 is
approved?

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg00912.html

Part 4 is new; it makes -fstrict-volatile-bitfields not be the default
for any target any more.  It is independent of the other changes.

Part 4:  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg00002.html

It seems that the change to the defaults in part 4 is still
controversial but my understanding based on discussion of the previous
version of the patches is that the maintainers were going to insist on
that as a condition of getting the other bug fixes in.  From my
perspective, I'd be happy just to wrap up this patch series somehow or
another, so please let me know if there are additional changes I need to
make before this is suitable to check in.

Please note that I'm pinging my own 4-part patch series, not the Bernd's followup patch confusingly posted in the same thread.

-Sandra


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]