[PATCH] reimplement -fstrict-volatile-bitfields v4, part 2/2

[Bernd Edlinger]

>
>> have an option for true AAPCS compliance, which will
>> be allowed to break the C++11 memory model and
>
>> And an option that addresses your requirements,
>> which will _not_ break the C++11 memory model
>
> So the problem isn't that what *I* need conflicts with C++11, it's
> that what AAPCS needs conflicts?

Yes, there are two written specifications which are in conflict
AAPCS and C++11. We cannot follow both at the same time.

But from this discussion I've learned, that your target's requirements
can easily co-exist with the C++ memory model.

Because if you only use well-formed bit-fields, the C++ memory
model just allows everything, and we can choose what to do.

Regards
Bernd.