From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12668 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2011 00:00:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 12597 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jan 2011 00:00:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:00:39 +0000 From: "joseph at codesourcery dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/47409] volatile struct member bug X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: joseph at codesourcery dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 02:17:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-01/txt/msg02558.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47409 --- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-01-25 00:00:37 UTC --- I think we should respect volatile on fields, and not use memcpy/memmove for assignment of volatile structs or structs with volatile fields (at least not for the parts with those fields; it's probably OK, but not worthwhile, for the non-volatile bits of the structs).