From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27928 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2005 13:41:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 27372 invoked by uid 48); 30 Aug 2005 13:40:21 -0000 Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:42:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050830134021.27371.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "m dot reszat at kostal dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050829140226.23623.m.reszat@kostal.com> References: <20050829140226.23623.m.reszat@kostal.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/23623] volatile keyword changes bitfield access size from 32bit to 8bit X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg03449.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From m dot reszat at kostal dot com 2005-08-30 13:40 ------- (In reply to comment #4) > Note this also happens on ARM where (in the EABI) it is definitely a bug I will try and dig up the EABI for PowerPC, but it's not just about sticking to a paper. It simply does not work for me (and probably others) the way it is. My system traps out on me or, worce, writes garbage to the 'untouched' register parts for some peripherals. NEC V850 and, I think, MIPS do the same. I can't quite see what can be gained by minimizing access size, but not knowing the complete rationale (why are non-bitfields NOT minimized, e.g. volatile int x |= 1), how about a command line switch to let the user select? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23623