On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > H-P: I hope you can approve my little patch for trunk now, > although it turned out to be less trivial than I'd have expected.
Sorry, I'm not an approver. (People who are not approvers are welcome to review any gcc patch where they might say something useful, whether unique or according to the gcc line, in order to ease the burden of those with actual approval burdens^wrights. In this case I *did* ask for the warning, so all the reason for me to do a little review.) Thanks! Looks reasonable (to my tree-ignorant eyes) modulo a few nits: Please put the "as it would" parts of the changelog entries as comments in the code instead. (ChangeLog says "what", not "why".) I'd also tweak the head comment of warn_portable_volatility_p (like the documentation change) to not refer to -fstrict-volatile-bitfields as the sole intended cause of concern; it should instead say something like "at present this function only covers -fstrict-volatile-bitfields" in order to open up for future amendments. Please also change the name to check_portable_volatility instead of warn_portable_volatility_p; the "_p" suffix is canonically used for boolean predicates. (You might have copied the wrong use of _p from somewhere else in the gcc code, but that's also in error.) > Of course it is dependent on Sandra's patch part 1 and part 2, > which must be applied first. brgds, H-P