On 06/24/2013 06:31 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
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.
OK. Meanwhile there have been some comments in PR56997 indicating that
this patch still isn't quite right, so I am going to have to tinker with
it a bit more.
To tell the truth, I've also been somewhat unhappy with the current
version; I'd much rather restructure the code further so that we check
for the -fstrict-volatile-bitfields case once at the top instead of
having to special-case 3 or 4 places deep down in the code to do
something different. The current version seemed like a more
conservative incremental change, but if it's still not correct it might
be better to bite the bullet on the refactoring. Anyway, I will spend a
few more days on it and post a revised patch for review.
-Sandra
