Hi Nathan, On Wed, 5 Sep 2018, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > this documents the fix for pr87137. Discovered as a GCC-8 regression, > turned out to be an ABI bug. Decided to fix the entire bug in one go. > Are these changes.html changes ok?
thanks for doing this! I have minor suggestions if you don't mind; the patch is fine if you consider these. Index: gcc-8/changes.html =================================================================== > <li>A C++ Microsoft ABI bitfield layout > bug, <a > href="https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87137";>PR87137</a> > has been fixed. A non-field declaration could cause the current > bitfield allocation unit to be completed, incorrectly placing a > following bitfield into a new allocation unit. Microsoft ABI is > selected for: Would "The Microsoft ABI" be more appropriate here? > <li>PowerPC, IA-32 or x86-64 targets > when <code>-mms-bitfields</code> option is specified And "when the...option" (as you have it in the SuperH entry)? > GCC 8 introduced additional cases of this defect, but rather than > resolve only those regressions, it was decided to resolve all the > case of this defect at once. Can we say "we decided"? That makes it a feel more active. ;-) And "cases" (plural)? (I believe all of those all apply to gcc-9/changes.html .) Thanks, Gerald
