On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Bernd Edlinger
bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de wrote:
Hi Richard,
well I think I have now a solution for both of your comments on the
initial version of the portable volatility warning patch.
Furthermore I have integrated Sandra's comments.
Therefore I think it
Hi Richard,
well I think I have now a solution for both of your comments on the
initial version of the portable volatility warning patch.
Furthermore I have integrated Sandra's comments.
Therefore I think it might be worth another try, if you don't mind.
Technically this patch is not dependent
Hi Sandra,
thanks a lot, your comments are very welcome, especially as I am
not a native english speaker...
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:46:22, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
I have some nit-picky documentation suggestions about this patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00100.html
+
On 09/25/2013 07:23 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Richard: I do not know, is this a political issue, that is blocking
the whole of Sandra's patch?
Actually we (softing.com) do not really care what happens to the
default setting of -fstrict-volatile-bitfields. Maybe you could look at
reviewing
I have some nit-picky documentation suggestions about this patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00100.html
+ warning_at (input_location, OPT_Wportable_volatility,
+ the code to accesses this volatile member is dependent on
+ whether
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 19:48:13, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
I think the warning can be completely implemented inside struct-layout.c
for example in finish_bitfield_representative (if you pass that the first
field
in the group, too). Of course that is at
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
I think the warning can be completely implemented inside struct-layout.c
for example in finish_bitfield_representative (if you pass that the first
field
in the group, too). Of course that is at the expense of warning for
struct declarations rather
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:05 AM, Bernd Edlinger
bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de wrote:
This is a follow-up patch for Sandra Loosemore's patch in this
thread: reimplement -fstrict-volatile-bitfields, v3.
It was already posted a few weeks ago, but in the wrong thread.
Therfore I re-post it herewith.
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 10:53:10, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:05 AM, Bernd Edlinger
bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de wrote:
This is a follow-up patch for Sandra Loosemore's patch in this
thread: reimplement -fstrict-volatile-bitfields, v3.
It was already posted a few weeks ago, but in
