On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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.
Yeah, it's not clear to me that this patch fixes anything by design. It mainly changes things from limiting the access in some way to not limiting it at all ... Richard. >> 2013-06-16 Sandra Loosemore <san...@codesourcery.com> >> >> PR middle-end/23623 >> >> gcc/ >> * expr.c (get_bit_range): Handle flag_strict_volatile_bitfields. > > Jakub
