From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28752 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2012 13:57:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 28742 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Nov 2012 13:57:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO mel.act-europe.fr) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:57:55 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43BA1CB0FA1; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:57:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from mel.act-europe.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UTLyHMB0i6sM; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:57:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from polaris.localnet (bon31-6-88-161-99-133.fbx.proxad.net [88.161.99.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mel.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D13CB02E1; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:57:55 +0100 (CET) From: Eric Botcazou To: Richard Sandiford Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [6/8] Add strict volatile handling to bit_field_mode_iterator Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:57:00 -0000 Message-ID: <1775073.QASfiHdzOH@polaris> User-Agent: KMail/4.7.2 (Linux/3.1.10-1.16-desktop; KDE/4.7.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <87txt7dix7.fsf@talisman.home> References: <87k3u3eybu.fsf@talisman.home> <87txt7dix7.fsf@talisman.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg00986.txt.bz2 > This patch makes bit_field_mode_iterator take -fstrict-volatile-bitfields > into account, in cases where the size of the underlying object is known. > This is used in the next patch. Do we really need to add that to the iterator? The -fstrict-volatile- bitfields implementation is still controversial so I'm not sure that we want let it spread. Can't the client code just skip the problematic modes? -- Eric Botcazou