http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
*** Bug 58677 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Oct 9 12:59:02 2013
New Revision: 203315
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203315&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/58570
* tree-ssa-alias.c (nonoverlapping_componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
> No. You only assume an alias if _both_ fields are bit fields.
> But in my example only one "a" is a volatile bit field the other
> is a normal member "b".
Then they won't be affected by the bug, see my exp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #10)
> > there is one more thing to consider for your proposed patch,
> > that is the damned -fstrict-volatile-bitfields:
> >
> > if strict_volatile_bitfields>0 and t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
> there is one more thing to consider for your proposed patch,
> that is the damned -fstrict-volatile-bitfields:
>
> if strict_volatile_bitfields>0 and the BIT_FIELD access
> is _volatile_ it does not respec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Eric,
there is one more thing to consider for your proposed patch,
that is the damned -fstrict-volatile-bitfields:
if strict_volatile_bitfields>0 and the BIT_FIELD access
is _volatile_ it does not respect t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58570
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botca
