-fstrict-volatile-bitfields fixes

DJ Delorie dj@redhat.com
Tue Dec 7 06:10:00 GMT 2010


> I guess we need to settle the question above before we can figure
> that out?

My concern was about adding code that isn't neccessary, and perhaps
irrelevent, and perhaps even misleading.  I don't think the proposed
patch would *break* things for an unwary user, as they just wouldn't
use the -fabi option.



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list