RE: Still fails with strict-volatile-bitfields

2014-02-03 Thread Bernd Edlinger
Hi, On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:26:03, Joey Ye wrote: > > Bernd, > > If that's the case, can you please firstly fix invoke.texi where the > behavior of strict-volatile-bitfields is described? At least my > interpretation of current doc doesn't explain the behavior of the case > we are discussing. Also

Re: Still fails with strict-volatile-bitfields

2014-01-12 Thread Joey Ye
Bernd, If that's the case, can you please firstly fix invoke.texi where the behavior of strict-volatile-bitfields is described? At least my interpretation of current doc doesn't explain the behavior of the case we are discussing. Also it should be a generic definition rather than target specific o

RE: Still fails with strict-volatile-bitfields

2014-01-10 Thread Bernd Edlinger
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:45:12, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Bernd Edlinger > wrote: >> On, Fri, 10 Jan 2014 09:41:06, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >>> >>> On 10/01/14 08:49, Bernd Edlinger wrote: On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 16:22:33, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > On 09/01

Re: Still fails with strict-volatile-bitfields

2014-01-10 Thread Richard Earnshaw
On 10/01/14 13:45, Richard Biener wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Bernd Edlinger > wrote: >> On, Fri, 10 Jan 2014 09:41:06, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >>> >>> On 10/01/14 08:49, Bernd Edlinger wrote: On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 16:22:33, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > On 09/01/14 08:26, Be

Re: Still fails with strict-volatile-bitfields

2014-01-10 Thread Richard Biener
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > On, Fri, 10 Jan 2014 09:41:06, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >> >> On 10/01/14 08:49, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >>> On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 16:22:33, Richard Earnshaw wrote: On 09/01/14 08:26, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 9

RE: Still fails with strict-volatile-bitfields

2014-01-10 Thread Bernd Edlinger
On, Fri, 10 Jan 2014 09:41:06, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > On 10/01/14 08:49, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 16:22:33, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >>> >>> On 09/01/14 08:26, Bernd Edlinger wrote: Hi, On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 15:01:54, Yoey Ye wrote: > > Sandra, Bernd,

Re: Still fails with strict-volatile-bitfields

2014-01-10 Thread Richard Earnshaw
On 10/01/14 08:49, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 16:22:33, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >> >> On 09/01/14 08:26, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 15:01:54, Yoey Ye wrote: Sandra, Bernd, Can you take a look at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_

Re: Still fails with strict-volatile-bitfields

2014-01-10 Thread Eric Botcazou
> No. This example was working in 4.6 and broken in 4.7 and 4.8. Note that it probably broke in 4.7.1 because the DECL_BIT_FIELD_REPRESENTATIVE stuff was backported after the initial 4.7.0 release. -- Eric Botcazou

Re: Still fails with strict-volatile-bitfields

2014-01-10 Thread Eric Botcazou
> No. This example was working in 4.6 and broken in 4.7 and 4.8. > Well, 4.7 should have warned about that. The 4.7 branch is not closed so it's not too late to add the warning there. -- Eric Botcazou

RE: Still fails with strict-volatile-bitfields

2014-01-10 Thread Bernd Edlinger
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 16:22:33, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > On 09/01/14 08:26, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 15:01:54, Yoey Ye wrote: >>> >>> Sandra, Bernd, >>> >>> Can you take a look at >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59734 >>> >>> It seems a siimple case stil

Re: Still fails with strict-volatile-bitfields

2014-01-09 Thread Richard Earnshaw
On 09/01/14 08:26, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 15:01:54, Yoey Ye wrote: >> >> Sandra, Bernd, >> >> Can you take a look at >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59734 >> >> It seems a siimple case still doesn't work as expected. Did I miss anything? >> >> Thanks, >>

RE: Still fails with strict-volatile-bitfields

2014-01-09 Thread Bernd Edlinger
Hi, On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 15:01:54, Yoey Ye wrote: > > Sandra, Bernd, > > Can you take a look at > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59734 > > It seems a siimple case still doesn't work as expected. Did I miss anything? > > Thanks, > Joey Yes, this is a major case where the C++ memory mod