https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804
Oleg Endo <olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo <olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #13)
> fp-bit != soft-fp.
Ugh, sorry. I didn't realize that they are two distinct pieces. I was really
just referring to fp-bit. I have not tried soft-fp on RX. But if it uses
bit-fields in the same way as fp-bit does at the moment, it will have issues on
RX as well.
Adding Ian to CC, who is listed as fp-bit maintainer.
> soft-fp always uses bit-fields (with the order
> depending on the endianness). It's possible that in some cases you need
> to ensure the declared types of the bit-fields are such that no padding
> gets inserted and so you have the right layout.
Since we're at it ... how to ensure bitfield layout and enclosing struct size?
I think fp-bit already tries to do that with __attribute__((packed)) and yet it
fails...
