On 06/16/2013 01:08 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
This part of the patch series fixes problems with bad code being emitted for unaligned bitfield accesses, as reported in PRs 48784, 56341, and 56997. A secondary goal of this patch was making the bitfield store and extract code follow similar logic, at least for the parts relating to -fstrict-volatile-bitfield handling.
Is it possible to get this part of the patch series reviewed? Except for the documentation change, it is independent of the controversy surrounding part 3 regarding whether the target ABI or C/C++ standard should take precedence when they conflict, and is independent of any further patches to change the default -fstrict-volatile-bitfields setting. If the rest of the patch is approved, I'll take care to fix up invoke.texi to accurately reflect the behavior of the approved patches before checking anything in.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg00911.html -Sandra
