This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Strict volatile bit-fields clean-up, Take 2
- From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
- To: Bernd Edlinger <bernd dot edlinger at hotmail dot de>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 17:24:55 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Strict volatile bit-fields clean-up, Take 2
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <DUB122-W2205631605E094F653823BE4D50 at phx dot gbl> <CAFiYyc2+PGyZ-U4K7hQLa10JgQ6KTz=xWUD4XO3D-Xq_tRCKxQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <DUB122-W43D7CC4F8A95047FD9E119E4D20 at phx dot gbl>
> Then I think we can put all bits together now:
>
> 1. Let Sandra apply her Bit-fields patch "reimplement
> -fstrict-volatile-bitfields v4, part 1/2" which was
> posted here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02058.html
> and approved here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg01476.html
>
> 2. As follow-Up I'd like to apply this update-patch, which fixes the
> recursion in the extract_split_bit_field and fixes the C++ memory
> model for -fstrict-volatile-bitfields:
>
> which was posted here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02046.html and approved here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg00091.html
>
> 3. Then this patch itself "Strict volatile bit-fields clean-up, Take 2".
>
> 4. And finally the Clean-up patch: "Strict volatile bit-fields clean-up"
> which removes the dependencies on
> the variable flag_strict_volatile_bitfields
> from expand_assignment and expand_expr_real_1. And uses the access mode
> of the field
> instead of the structure mode.
>
> which was posted here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02479.html and approved here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg00086.html
Nice work btw, no regressions (at least in C and Ada) on x86, x86-64, PowerPC,
IA-64, SPARC and SPARC64, which was not a given thing IMO.
--
Eric Botcazou