[Bug target/52991] attribute packed broken on mingw32?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52991 --- Comment #23 from Ladislav Láska --- Not everyone, ms bitfields are enabled by default on MINGW architectures, making the "packed" attribute broken by default and without a warning. If everyone really uses -mno-ms-bitfields, it should become the default and possibly removed, or the documentation fixed to warn everyone that using it will break stuff.
[Bug target/52991] attribute packed broken on mingw32?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52991 --- Comment #22 from Gianluigi Tiesi --- (In reply to Ladislav Láska from comment #21) > Hi! > > I'm still seeing this problem on recent release 6.3.1, and it seems to be > enabled by default on at least some builds (msys2 for example). > > Can I help somehow to get this into trunk sooner? > > Thanks! everyone uses -mno-ms-bitfields nowadays
[Bug target/52991] attribute packed broken on mingw32?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52991 Ladislav Láska changed: What|Removed |Added CC||krakonos at krakonos dot org --- Comment #21 from Ladislav Láska --- Hi! I'm still seeing this problem on recent release 6.3.1, and it seems to be enabled by default on at least some builds (msys2 for example). Can I help somehow to get this into trunk sooner? Thanks!
[Bug target/52991] attribute packed broken on mingw32?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52991 m.facchin at arduino dot cc changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m.facchin at arduino dot cc --- Comment #20 from m.facchin at arduino dot cc --- I just hit this bug on dfu-util 0.8 (i686-w64-mingw32 5.3.0) The patch has been available for 3 years now, but if you don't want to apply that patch please apply at least the workaround (reverting to -mno-ms-bitfields as default)
[Bug target/52991] attribute packed broken on mingw32?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52991 Pierre Ossman ossman at cendio dot se changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ossman at cendio dot se --- Comment #19 from Pierre Ossman ossman at cendio dot se --- This bug report is now over three years old. Any progress? I'm still seeing it in 5.1.0. Should the summary also be updated to reflect that this is a regression? And should the default be reverted until the code can be fixed?