From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1993 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2013 00:03:46 -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 Received: (qmail 1903 invoked by uid 48); 24 Jun 2013 00:03:34 -0000 From: "sandra at codesourcery dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/56997] Incorrect write to packed field when strict-volatile-bitfields enabled on aarch32 Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 00:03:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: sandra 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-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg01328.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56997 --- Comment #8 from Sandra Loosemore --- Thanks for giving it a try. Do you think that in a case such as this where a single access of the appropriate size cannot be generated due to the struct having unaligned fields we should generate the same code as with -fno-strict-volatile-bitfields, or something else? I agree the behavior of my current patch is problematical here, but we need to decide what this case is supposed to do before I can figure out how to fix the code.