On 08/26/2013 01:16 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
PING!
This issue is really important. It does not only affect bitfields but
all kinds of packed structures.
Starting from gcc 4.6.0 there is not a single released version that
handles the packed structures correctly.
So could some one please approv
Bernd.
> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:33:23 -0600
> From: san...@codesourcery.com
> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> CC: richard.guent...@gmail.com; ebotca...@adacore.com;
> bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de
> Subject: [ping**3] Re: [patch 0/4] reimplement -fst
On 07/20/2013 01:12 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
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.
Ping?
...and ping again.
...and again. Hmmm.
struct patch_status
{
v
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> Please put the "as it would" parts of the changelog entries as
> comments in the code instead. (ChangeLog says "what", not "why".)
>
> I'd also tweak the head comment of warn_portable_volatility_p
> (like the documentation change) to not refer to
> -
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> H-P: I hope you can approve my little patch for trunk now,
> although it turned out to be less trivial than I'd have expected.
Sorry, I'm not an approver. (People who are not approvers are
welcome to review any gcc patch where they might say something
Hello Hans-Peter,
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2013, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Hi Sandra,
>>
>> On Fri, 5 Jul 2013, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote
>>> Or - maybe more acceptable - an optional warning, say
>>> -Wportable-volatility, to warn about code for which separate
>>> incompatbile definitions on different platf
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.
Ping?
...and ping again.
Part 1 removes the warnings and packedp flag. It is the same as in the
last version, and has alre
On Sat, 13 Jul 2013, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi Sandra,
>
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2013, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote
> > Or - maybe more acceptable - an optional warning, say
> > -Wportable-volatility, to warn about code for which separate
> > incompatbile definitions on different platforms (or between C
> > a
Hi Sandra,
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote
> Or - maybe more acceptable - an optional warning, say
> -Wportable-volatility, to warn about code for which separate
> incompatbile definitions on different platforms (or between C
> and C++) exist even within gcc. It would be usable for d
On 06/30/2013 09:24 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
Here is my third attempt at cleaning up -fstrict-volatile-bitfields.
Ping?
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 alrea
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
