On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:46:50 +0100
Julian Brown <jul...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> So, OK to apply this version, assuming testing comes out OK? (And the
> followup patch [2/2], which remains unchanged?)
FWIW, all tests pass, apart from gcc.target/arm/volatile-bitfields-3.c,
which regresses. The output contains:
ldrh r0, [r3, #2] @ unaligned
I believe that, to conform to the ARM EABI, that GCC must use an
(aligned) ldr in this case. Is that correct? If so, it looks like the
middle-end bitfield code does not take the setting of
-fstrict-volatile-bitfields into account.
Julian
