On 09/02/2013 03:10 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Can someone, in a new thread, ping the patches that are still in
flight? ISTR having approved bits of some patches before my leave.
Here's the current state of the patch set I put together. I've lost
track of where the canonical version of Bernd's followup patch is.
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.
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
-Sandra
