On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Sandra Loosemore <san...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > 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
It looks sensible to me but I'd like to have Eric have a 2nd look as he is most familiar with this code. Thanks, Richard. > -Sandra > >
