Sorry about my oversight. I am on vacation now until Dec 19. I don't have good internet access now and I will backport this to upstream 4.6 after I come back if the 4.6 maintainers agree to take this.
-Doug On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 05:59:53PM -0800, Doug Kwan wrote: >>> This is a backport for two upstream patches into our 4.6 branch. >>> I submitted the first patch by Julian a while ago for backport but >>> Richard Earnshaw pointed out a problem with the first patch. The second >>> patch from Joey fixes that problem. This was tested on x86 and ARM. >> >> Why hasn't this been proposed for upstream 4.6 instead? >> See PR51442. > > It's indeed annoying to see arm related backports only going to > vendor branches, not the last officially maintained GCC release > branch (4.6). I keep getting local requests to include random > patches to our 4.6 build to make "arm work at all". It seriously > seems like having arm-linux-gnueabi as a primary target is a lie to our users. > > Arm maintainers - please consider maintaining at least the current > release series and shift focus away from your vendor branches. > > Thanks, > Richard. > >>> 2011-11-22 Doug Kwan <dougk...@google.com> >>> >>> Backport r171347 and r181549 from trunk. >>> >>> gcc/ >>> 2011-03-23 Julian Brown <jul...@codesourcery.com> >>> >>> * expr.c (expand_expr_real_1): Only use BLKmode for volatile >>> accesses which are not naturally aligned. >>> >>> 2011-11-20 Joey Ye <joey...@arm.com> >>> >>> * expr.c (expand_expr_real_1): Correctly handle strict >>> volatile >>> bitfield loads smaller than mode size. >>> >>> gcc/testsuite/ >>> 2011-11-20 Joey Ye <joey...@arm.com> >>> >>> * gcc.dg/volatile-bitfields-1.c: New. >> >> Jakub
