On 11/11/11 16:30, Joey Ye wrote: > -fstrict-volatile-bitfields doesn't work incorrectly in some cases > when storing into a volatile bit-field. > > Bernd provided a fix here about 1 year ago: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg00217.html. > But it is pending to trunk. Here are my humble opinions and hopefully > we can revive it: > > 1. The fix could have helped lots of those who use volatile bit-fields, > but has been blocked for 1 year by ABI version 1, a feature that I believe > no one nowadays is using with latest gcc. Either error out ABI version 1 > for some target, or just revising the failed ABI test case is OK for me.
Yeah. At the time I thought the objections were a bit pointless. At worst, the added code in some of the target ports is irrelevant, as admitted by DJ later in the thread, but nothing stops port maintainers from adding code to disallow -fabi-version for their port. Since none do this (AFAIK), I still believe it's best to make all ports behave identically with this patch. So, I still think this patch is the best way to go forward, and it does fix incorrect code generation. Would appreciate an OK. Bernd
