On 02/20/2012 12:14 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Thomas Schwinge > <tho...@codesourcery.com> wrote: >> Hi! >> >> How do we move this issue forward? >> >> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:46:34 +0100, Bernd Schmidt <ber...@codesourcery.com> >> wrote: >>> That was committed a while ago. The part in stor-layout.c that stops us >>> from promoting bitfields to normal fields apparently caused some >>> testsuite regressions in sh tests, where some optimization dump scans >>> show that we can't perform the optimizations if there are BIT_FIELD_REFs >>> rather than a normal member access. >>> >>> The testcases use things like >>> enum something field:8; >>> and I think applying strict-volatile-bitfields to enums is probably >>> meaningless. Should we adjust semantics so that the compiler is free to >>> optimize enum bitfields? The patch would look something like the below.
> > What about BOOLEAN_TYPE bitfields? Thus, why not explicitely > spell out && TREE_CODE (type) == INTEGER_TYPE? That would work for me, if we can all agree that -fstrict-volatile-bitfields should be restricted to INTEGER_TYPE. Bernd