On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 07/26/2011 10:32 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >> >>> I think the adjustment above is intended to match the adjustment of the >>> address by bitregion_start/BITS_PER_UNIT, but the above seems to assume >>> that bitregion_start%BITS_PER_UNIT == 0. >> >> That was intentional. bitregion_start always falls on a byte boundary, >> does it not? > > Ah, yes, of course, it's bitnum that might not. The code changes look good, > then.
Looks like this was an approval ... Anyway, I don't think a --param is appropriate to control a flag whether to allow store data-races to be created. Why not use a regular option instead? I believe that any after-the-fact attempt to recover bitfield boundaries is going to fail unless you preserve more information during bitfield layout. Consider struct { char : 8; char : 0; char : 8; }; where the : 0 isn't preserved in any way and you can't distinguish it from struct { char : 8; char : 8; }. Richard. > Jason >