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]

Re: [PATCH] reimplement -fstrict-volatile-bitfields v4, part 2/2


As per my previous comments on this patch, I will not approve the
changes to the m32c backend, as they will cause real bugs in real
hardware, and violate the hardware's ABI.  The user may use
-fno-strict-volatile-bitfields if they do not desire this behavior and
understand the consequences.

I am not a maintainer for the rx and h8300 ports, but they are in the
same situation.

To reiterate my core position: if the user defines a proper "volatile
int" bitfield, and the compiler does anything other than an int-sized
access, the compiler is WRONG.  Any optimization that changes volatile
accesses to something other than what the user specified is a bug that
needs to be fixed before this option can be non-default.


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