http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48124
--- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2012-05-31 10:48:19 UTC --- On Thu, 31 May 2012, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48124 > > --- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-31 > 10:42:10 UTC --- > (In reply to comment #25) > > On Thu, 31 May 2012, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48124 > > > > > > --- Comment #24 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> > > > 2012-05-31 10:36:10 UTC --- > > > > I'll test it on i?85-linux as well. I don't have access to a > > > > strict-alignment platform - but the patch is essentially the same > > > > as on trunk. Can you give it a shot on sparc or do you forsee any > > > > issues and thus would rather not backport this kind of change? The > > > > idea was that 4.7.1 would still be ok but later this kind of change > > > > is obviously too intrusive. > > > > > > Yes, I think it's appropriate for 4.7.1 if all the follow-ups are > > > backported as > > > well. I'll give it a whirl on SPARC. > > > > I think I have included them all in the patch I attached. Meanwhile > > multilib testing has finished on x86_64, a pure i?86 bootstrap still > > pending (I'm also testing on arm and ppc/ppc64 now, but that may > > take a while) > > http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186819 > is kind of a follow-up too. Yes, that's what motivated me to look again at a possible backport of the DECL_BIT_FIELD_REPRESENTATIVE patch. I'd backport that separately though.
