Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>>> What I would suggest is to have a -fgnu-strict-volatile-bit-fields
>>
>> Why a new option? The -fstrict-volatile-bitfields option is already
>> GCC-specific, and I think it can do what you want anyway.
>
>As I understand Richard's comment, he proposes to
>have an option for true AAPCS compliance, which will
>be allowed to break the C++11 memory model and
>which will _not_ be the default on any target.
>Name it -fstrict-volatile-bitfields.
>
>And an option that addresses your requirements,
>which will _not_ break the C++11 memory model
>and which will be the default on some targets,
>dependent on the respective ABI requirements.
>Name it -fgnu-strict-volatile-bit-fields.
Yes. You could also make it -fstrict-volatile-bitfields={off,gnu,aacps} if you
think that's better.
Richard.
>
>Bernd.
