> >> have an option for true AAPCS compliance, which will >> be allowed to break the C++11 memory model and > >> And an option that addresses your requirements, >> which will _not_ break the C++11 memory model > > So the problem isn't that what *I* need conflicts with C++11, it's > that what AAPCS needs conflicts?
Yes, there are two written specifications which are in conflict AAPCS and C++11. We cannot follow both at the same time. But from this discussion I've learned, that your target's requirements can easily co-exist with the C++ memory model. Because if you only use well-formed bit-fields, the C++ memory model just allows everything, and we can choose what to do. Regards Bernd.