On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 12:56:22 Sandra Loosemore wrote: > > 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? >>>
regarding Part 3, I have a small comment on it: The test programs pr56997-*.c depend on <stdint.h> and other headers. I stumbled over it because I tried to compile the test programs with an eCos cross-compiler, and eCos happens to not have "stdint.h". Many test cases try to avoid all dependencies on include files. >>> 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 > And the warnings part is re-posted here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00100.html Bernd.
