Re: patch: honor volatile bitfield types

[Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>]

On 06/14/2010 06:20 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> And, the field name should definitely be mentioned if at all
>> possible.
> 
> Sigh, not possible without major code changes.  This is the problem I
> ran into writing the patch itself - the decls are all long since lost
> by the time we get to these routines, and some of the paths that lead
> to them make it very difficult to keep track of them (if they're
> available at all).
> 
> How's this for the message?
> 
> 
> 	      if (bitsize == total_bits)
> 		warning (0, "mis-aligned access used for structure member");
> 	      else
> 		warning (0, "mis-aligned access used for structure bitfield");
> 
> 	      if (! warned_about_misalignment)
> 		{
> 		  warned_about_misalignment = true;
> 		  warning (0, "volatile objects require a single access to preserve their"
> 			   " volatility, but this member spans multiple type-sized locations."
> 			   " Normally the compiler would use multiple accesses for such fields"
> 			   " to avoid mis-aligned accesses.  This code may fail at runtime")
> 		}

Is this second message more approriate to "info" than "warning"?


r~