https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62180
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62180
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62180
--- Comment #5 from Jan Čapek ---
(In reply to DJ Delorie from comment #4)
> Perhaps you need this patch:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg00993.html
DJ Delorie,
you are the man! The patch works as expected. Interestingly, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62180
DJ Delorie changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dj at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 from DJ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62180
--- Comment #3 from Jan Čapek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> C11 says something different here.
I can see the following the -fstrict-volatile-bitfields documentation:
"This option should be used if accesses to volatile bit-fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62180
--- Comment #2 from Jan Čapek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> C11 says something different here.
Can you be a bit more specific?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62180
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |
Target|Renesas RX600
