On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Jason Merrill <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 07/26/2011 10:32 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>
>>> I think the adjustment above is intended to match the adjustment of the
>>> address by bitregion_start/BITS_PER_UNIT, but the above seems to assume
>>> that bitregion_start%BITS_PER_UNIT == 0.
>>
>> That was intentional. bitregion_start always falls on a byte boundary,
>> does it not?
>
> Ah, yes, of course, it's bitnum that might not. The code changes look good,
> then.
Looks like this was an approval ...
Anyway, I don't think a --param is appropriate to control a flag whether
to allow store data-races to be created. Why not use a regular option instead?
I believe that any after-the-fact attempt to recover bitfield boundaries is
going to fail unless you preserve more information during bitfield layout.
Consider
struct {
char : 8;
char : 0;
char : 8;
};
where the : 0 isn't preserved in any way and you can't distinguish
it from struct { char : 8; char : 8; }.
Richard.
> Jason
>
