On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Sandra Loosemore
wrote:
> On 06/19/2013 05:10 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't think it's right to depend on the standard version like this. The
>> existing semantics for GNU C and C++ follow the memory model for all
>> standard versions, and that's the
On 06/19/2013 05:10 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
I don't think it's right to depend on the standard version like this. The
existing semantics for GNU C and C++ follow the memory model for all
standard versions, and that's the sort of thing that shouldn't depend on
the target architecture. In the
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> On 06/17/2013 06:02 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> >
> > I had another thought: perhaps -fstrict-volatile-bitfields could remain
> > the default on targets where it currently is, but it can be overridden
> > by an appropriate -std= option. Perhaps a
