Hi,
On Wed, 3 May 2017, grischka wrote:
> However, suppose we have a field with bit_pos=5,bit_size=32.
> In order to read it we need to read 40 bits, yes? How do we
> do that on a 32-bit target, for example?
Yep, we don't (i.e. we're buggy in these cases and always were). It's one
example of
On 2017-05-03 11:39:16 +0200, grischka wrote:
> Interesting. Obviously I removed the suppression of some warnings,
> among them "uninitialized" ;) See the change in configure:
>
> -W_OPTIONS="deprecated-declarations strict-aliasing pointer-sign\
> sign-compare unused-result
Christian Jullien wrote:
After doing a dichotomy search I found that:
2017-02-13 grischka mems & leaks commit was the last commit WITHOUT this
warning
Next commit also made by grischka, introduced this warning:
2017-02-13 grischka updates & cleanups (tcc-doc/Changelog/TODO ...)
I see no
Michael Matz wrote:
OTOH your mentioning of "to the point where it actually was producing
the correct layout" indicates that it's not producing correct (i.e.
expected) layout/code anymore. Examples? Because, really, I fixed
struct bit-field incompatibilities with both MSVC and GCC, and hence
