On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Andrew Pinski wrote: > 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.
Or - maybe more acceptable - an optional warning, say -Wportable-volatility, to warn about code for which separate incompatbile definitions on different platforms (or between C and C++) exist even within gcc. It would be usable for driver code you want to be usable on different architectures, say, in an OS commonly compiled with gcc, if you can think of some. :) brgds, H-P PS. Sorry, not currently planning on this.
