From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17906 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2009 21:00:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 17896 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Sep 2009 21:00:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_FAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx20.gnu.org (HELO mx20.gnu.org) (199.232.41.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:00:31 +0000 Received: from [65.74.133.4] (helo=mail.codesourcery.com) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MpTWH-0005Lg-3k for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:00:29 -0400 Received: (qmail 32220 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2009 21:00:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digraph.polyomino.org.uk) (joseph@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 20 Sep 2009 21:00:26 -0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MpTWC-0001p6-R1; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:00:24 +0000 Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:00:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: =?UTF-8?B?Wm9sdMOhbiBLw7Njc2k=?= cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Bitfields In-Reply-To: <20090920233132.0a713e96@manocska.bendor.com.au> Message-ID: References: <20090920233132.0a713e96@manocska.bendor.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-1152306461-1666025706-1253480424=:27448" X-detected-operating-system: by mx20.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00391.txt.bz2 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---1152306461-1666025706-1253480424=:27448 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-length: 514 On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, Zolt=C3=A1n K=C3=B3csi wrote: > I wonder if there would be at least a theoretical support by the > developers to a proposal for volatile bitfields: It has been proposed (and not rejected, but not yet implemented) that=20 volatile bit-fields should follow the ARM EABI specification (on all=20 targets); that certainly seems better than inventing something new unless=20 you have a very good reason to prefer the something new on some targets. --=20 Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com= ---1152306461-1666025706-1253480424=:27448--