On Tue, 3 Sep 2013, Richard Biener wrote: > I think the warning can be completely implemented inside struct-layout.c > for example in finish_bitfield_representative (if you pass that the first > field > in the group, too). Of course that is at the expense of warning for > struct declarations rather than actual code differences (the struct may > not be used)
FWIW, I don't feeling stringly whether this is ok or not, but I *think* missing warnings for (unused) declarations is ok; we are (ok, I am) interested in semantic differences for generated code, not declarations. brgds, H-P
