On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> well I think I have now a solution for both of your comments on the
> initial version of the portable volatility warning patch.
> Furthermore I have integrated Sandra's comments.
>
> Therefore I think it might be worth anothe
Hi Richard,
well I think I have now a solution for both of your comments on the
initial version of the portable volatility warning patch.
Furthermore I have integrated Sandra's comments.
Therefore I think it might be worth another try, if you don't mind.
Technically this patch is not dependent o
On 09/25/2013 07:23 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Richard: I do not know, is this a political issue, that is blocking
the whole of Sandra's patch?
Actually we (softing.com) do not really care what happens to the
default setting of -fstrict-volatile-bitfields. Maybe you could look at
reviewing Sandr
Hi Sandra,
thanks a lot, your comments are very welcome, especially as I am
not a native english speaker...
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:46:22, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>
> I have some nit-picky documentation suggestions about this patch
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00100.html
>
I have some nit-picky documentation suggestions about this patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00100.html
+ warning_at (input_location, OPT_Wportable_volatility,
+ "the code to accesses this volatile member is dependent on"
+ " whether -fstrict-volati
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 19:48:13, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> 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
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 rath
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 10:53:10, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:05 AM, Bernd Edlinger
> wrote:
>> This is a follow-up patch for Sandra Loosemore's patch in this
>> thread: "reimplement -fstrict-volatile-bitfields, v3".
>> It was already posted a few weeks ago, but in the wrong thread
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:05 AM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
> This is a follow-up patch for Sandra Loosemore's patch in this
> thread: "reimplement -fstrict-volatile-bitfields, v3".
> It was already posted a few weeks ago, but in the wrong thread.
> Therfore I re-post it herewith.
> It was initially sug
This is a follow-up patch for Sandra Loosemore's patch in this
thread: "reimplement -fstrict-volatile-bitfields, v3".
It was already posted a few weeks ago, but in the wrong thread.
Therefore I re-post it herewith.
It was initially suggested by Hans-Peter Nilsson, and I had much
help from him in
10 matches
Mail list logo
