On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 01:08:12PM -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> This patch fixes the PR23623 regression. In conjunction with part 2
> of the series, it also fixes the new volatile-bitfields-3.c test
> case.
>
> As I noted in previous discussion, there might be a better place to
> accomplish this effect, but hacking DECL_BIT_FIELD_REPRESENTATIVE
> can't work because the volatile-ness may be coming from a qualifier
> on the pointer or object from which the field is being extracted,
> rather than from a volatile qualifier on the bit field decl. I
> think the choices are to do it in get_bit_range (as in this patch),
> in the callers of get_bit_range, or at the places where the bit
> range information is being used.
So does this means you just always violate C++11 memory model requirements
with -fstrict-volatile-bitfields? That doesn't seem to be a good idea.
> 2013-06-16 Sandra Loosemore <san...@codesourcery.com>
>
> PR middle-end/23623
>
> gcc/
> * expr.c (get_bit_range): Handle flag_strict_volatile_bitfields.
Jakub
