Earlier today I wrote:
On 06/17/2013 08:41 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Julian Brown wrote:
IIUC, the incompatibility between the specified
-fstrict-volatile-bitfields behaviour and the C++ memory model is a
recognised deficiency in the ARM EABI. It might be an unpopular
su
On 06/17/2013 08:41 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Julian Brown wrote:
IIUC, the incompatibility between the specified
-fstrict-volatile-bitfields behaviour and the C++ memory model is a
recognised deficiency in the ARM EABI. It might be an unpopular
suggestion, but how about d
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Julian Brown wrote:
> IIUC, the incompatibility between the specified
> -fstrict-volatile-bitfields behaviour and the C++ memory model is a
> recognised deficiency in the ARM EABI. It might be an unpopular
> suggestion, but how about disabling the option by default for C++ on
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 06/17/2013 02:27 PM, Julian Brown wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:38:05 +0200
>> Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Julian Brown
>>> wrote:
IIUC, the incompatibility between the specified
-fstrict-vo
On 06/17/2013 02:27 PM, Julian Brown wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:38:05 +0200
> Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Julian Brown
>> wrote:
>>> IIUC, the incompatibility between the specified
>>> -fstrict-volatile-bitfields behaviour and the C++ memory model is a
>>> re
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 01:27:38PM +0100, Julian Brown wrote:
> Well -- I'm certainly no expert on the C++ memory model, but I am under
> the impression (that I can't seem to verify by googling ;-)) that
> accesses to adjacent bitfields during volatile access of a particular
> bitfield are forbidde
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:38:05 +0200
Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Julian Brown
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:12:09 +0200
> > Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Jakub Jelinek
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 01:08:12PM -0600
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Julian Brown wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:12:09 +0200
> Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Jakub Jelinek
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 01:08:12PM -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>> >> This patch fixes the PR23623 regression. I
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:12:09 +0200
Richard Biener wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Jakub Jelinek
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 01:08:12PM -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> >> This patch fixes the PR23623 regression. In conjunction with part
> >> 2 of the series, it also fixes the
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 01:08:12PM -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>> This patch fixes the PR23623 regression. In conjunction with part 2
>> of the series, it also fixes the new volatile-bitfields-3.c test
>> case.
>>
>> As I noted in previou
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 01:08:12PM -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> This patch fixes the PR23623 regression. In conjunction with part 2
> of the series, it also fixes the new volatile-bitfields-3.c test
> case.
>
> As I noted in previous discussion, there might be a better place to
> accomplish t
This patch fixes the PR23623 regression. In conjunction with part 2 of
the series, it also fixes the new volatile-bitfields-3.c test case.
As I noted in previous discussion, there might be a better place to
accomplish this effect, but hacking DECL_BIT_FIELD_REPRESENTATIVE can't
work because t
12 matches
Mail list logo
