--- Comment #6 from frikkie at zitera dot co dot za 2009-01-13 15:56
---
Good day,
I've submitted patches to bug report 23623
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23623)
that corrects the behavior described in this bug report.
There are patches for GCC 4.3.2 and GCC
--- Comment #14 from frikkie at zitera dot co dot za 2009-01-13 15:51
---
Created an attachment (id=17087)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17087&action=view)
GCC 4.3.2 patch for volatile bitfields
The following patches help to honour the container type
--- Comment #13 from frikkie at zitera dot co dot za 2009-01-13 10:42
---
Please note: The patch was for GCC 4.4.0, not GCC 4.0.0 as mentioned in the
previous post.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23623
--- Comment #12 from frikkie at zitera dot co dot za 2009-01-13 10:12
---
Created an attachment (id=17085)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17085&action=view)
patch_for_volatile_bitfields_gcc400.tgz
The following patches help to honour the container type
--- Comment #5 from frikkie at zitera dot co dot za 2009-01-06 09:07
---
Good day,
This behavior was verified by me on an ST STR912 ARM9, running GCC v4.3.2
(target: arm-none-eabi)
The attached snippets of disassembler still shows the incorrect assembler
instructions:
--CODE
--- Comment #4 from frikkie at zitera dot co dot za 2009-01-06 09:04
---
Created an attachment (id=17037)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17037&action=view)
disassembler associated with bitfield manipulation
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27628
