PING!
This issue is really important. It does not only affect bitfields but all kinds
of packed structures.
Starting from gcc 4.6.0 there is not a single released version that handles the
packed structures
correctly.
So could some one please approve Sandra's patch now?
Thanks
Bernd.
----------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:33:23 -0600
> From: san...@codesourcery.com
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> CC: richard.guent...@gmail.com; ebotca...@adacore.com;
> bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de
> Subject: [ping**3] Re: [patch 0/4] reimplement -fstrict-volatile-bitfields, v3
>
> On 07/20/2013 01:12 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>> On 07/09/2013 10:23 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>>> On 06/30/2013 09:24 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>>>> Here is my third attempt at cleaning up -fstrict-volatile-bitfields.
>>>
>>> Ping?
>>
>> ...and ping again.
>
> ...and again. Hmmm.
>
> struct patch_status
> {
> volatile int approved:1;
> volatile int rejected:1;
> volatile int needs_changes:1;
> int pinged;
> };
>
> extern struct patch_status s;
>
> while (!s.approved && !s.rejected && !s.needs_changes)
> {
> sleep (a_week_or_two ());
> pinged++;
> }
>
>>>> Part 1 removes the warnings and packedp flag. It is the same as in the
>>>> last version, and has already been approved. I'll skip reposting it
>>>> since the patch is here already:
>>>>
>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg00908.html
>>>>
>>>> Part 2 replaces parts 2, 3, and 4 in the last version. I've re-worked
>>>> this code significantly to try to address Bernd Edlinger's comments on
>>>> the last version in PR56997.
>>>
>>> Part 2: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg00001.html
>>>
>>>> Part 3 is the test cases, which are the same as in the last version.
>>>> Nobody has reviewed these but I assume they are OK if Part 2 is
>>>> approved?
>>>>
>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg00912.html
>>>>
>>>> Part 4 is new; it makes -fstrict-volatile-bitfields not be the default
>>>> for any target any more. It is independent of the other changes.
>>>
>>> Part 4: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg00002.html
>>>
>>> It seems that the change to the defaults in part 4 is still
>>> controversial but my understanding based on discussion of the previous
>>> version of the patches is that the maintainers were going to insist on
>>> that as a condition of getting the other bug fixes in. From my
>>> perspective, I'd be happy just to wrap up this patch series somehow or
>>> another, so please let me know if there are additional changes I need to
>>> make before this is suitable to check in.
>
> Please note that I'm pinging my own 4-part patch series, not the Bernd's
> followup patch confusingly posted in the same thread.
>
> -Sandra
>
