[ping] Re: [patch 0/4] reimplement -fstrict-volatile-bitfields, v3

[Bernd Edlinger]

Hi Sandra,

On Fri, 5 Jul 2013, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote
> Or - maybe more acceptable - an optional warning, say
> -Wportable-volatility, to warn about code for which separate
> incompatbile definitions on different platforms (or between C
> and C++) exist even within gcc.  It would be usable for driver
> code you want to be usable on different architectures, say, in
> an OS commonly compiled with gcc, if you can think of some. :)


I like this idea, and this warning would add some real value for everyone.
Therefore I added that option as part 5 of this patch series, I hope you don't mind :)


I really hope that the GCC maintainers can accept this patch now, as the
current state of -fstrict-volatile-bitfields is very painful to all of us.


Regards
Bernd Edlinger 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gcc-4.9-portable-volatility.diff
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 2967 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20130713/9b0f117c/attachment.obj>