[Bug middle-end/94600] Ignored volatile specifier on loop unrolling and bitfield misoptimization

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94600

--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eb79f4db49c5f5a807555e9d374524664eb537bf

commit r11-5749-geb79f4db49c5f5a807555e9d374524664eb537bf
Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@axis.com>
Date:   Fri Dec 4 20:27:23 2020 +0100

    doc/implement-c.texi: About same-as-scalar-type volatile aggregate
accesses, PR94600

    We say very little about reads and writes to aggregate /
    compound objects, just scalar objects (i.e. assignments don't
    cause reads).  Let's lets say something safe about aggregate
    objects, but only for those that are the same size as a scalar
    type.

    There's an equal-sounding section (Volatiles) in extend.texi,
    but this seems a more appropriate place, as specifying the
    behavior of a standard qualifier.

    gcc:

    2020-12-04  Hans-Peter Nilsson  <hp@axis.com>
                Martin Sebor  <msebor@redhat.com>

            PR middle-end/94600
            * doc/implement-c.texi (Qualifiers implementation): Add blurb
            about access to the whole of a volatile aggregate object, only for
            same-size as a scalar object.