From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21972 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2012 17:10:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 21962 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Nov 2012 17:10:31 -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; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:10:26 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F97CB1376; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:10:27 +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 fKmhcdsV2S7K; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:10:27 +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 9058DCB000F; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:10:27 +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: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: <2631532.Xhzk4x2KXd@polaris> User-Agent: KMail/4.7.2 (Linux/3.1.10-1.16-desktop; KDE/4.7.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <87fw4bvyrv.fsf@sandifor-thinkpad.stglab.manchester.uk.ibm.com> References: <87k3u3eybu.fsf@talisman.home> <1775073.QASfiHdzOH@polaris> <87fw4bvyrv.fsf@sandifor-thinkpad.stglab.manchester.uk.ibm.com> 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/msg01277.txt.bz2 > The idea was to centralise the knowledge about what modes are valid > rather than requiring every client to know the rules. From that point > of view it seems inconsistent for the new interface to handle the > bitregion_{start,end} restrictions (a correctness issue) but not the > volatility restrictions (also a correctness issue). Especially when the > interface already knows whether the field is volatile and already handles > the choice between "narrow" and "wide" volatile bitfields. Richard B.'s idea is precisely to reimplement -fstrict-volatile bitfields on top of bitregion_{start,end}, that's why I'm not sure we want to make it part of the interface at all. -- Eric Botcazou