This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] reimplement -fstrict-volatile-bitfields v4, part 2/2
- From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: bernd dot edlinger at hotmail dot de, sandra at codesourcery dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, richard dot guenther at gmail dot com
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 13:29:58 -0400
- 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> <201310162346 dot r9GNk6Zb013168 at greed dot delorie dot com> <525F4881 dot 30900 at codesourcery dot com>,<201310170250 dot r9H2oKkv017657 at greed dot delorie dot com> <DUB122-W47A0C292667380EF5C8D20E4050 at phx dot gbl> <201310171617 dot r9HGHEOV006872 at greed dot delorie dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1310171715040 dot 24034 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
> At least on ARM, you can e.g. have a non-bit-field "char" that occupies
> part of the same 4-byte unit as an "int" bit-field.
Ok, "when the user doesn't give the compiler conflicting requirements."
(which is why I contemplated making those conflicts errors at first)
I'm a big fan of blaming the user when they mix things together and
expect the compiler to read their mind.