On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 8:32 PM, DJ Delorie <d...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Given how much trouble I went through to make it the default, I'd > rather not revert all that work... especially since the flag is > *required* for proper operation of the hardware on many of these > targets. > > This patch will, or course, silently and obscurely break existing > code.
And without the patch will break silently existing valid C11/C++11 code on many targets. This is the whole point of the patch to follow the C/C++ standard here rather than breaking valid code. I rather see volatile on bitfields becoming an error rather than either of these patches. Thanks, Andrew Pinski
