On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Note that with all this mess I'll re-iterate some of my initial thoughts. >> 1) why not do this C++ (or C) specific stuff in the frontends, maybe >> at gimplifying/genericization time? That way you wouldn't need to >> worry about middle-end features but you could rely solely on what >> C/C++ permit. It is, after all, C++ _frontend_ semantics that we >> enforce here, in the middle-end, which looks out-of-place. > > The front-end, really? After all this going back and forth?
Well, I'm fine with handling it in the middle-end if it's correct there. > After you were > all so worried about Ada, and now you're ditching it in favor of handling > only C++? I'm just showing you a possible solution for where you'd not need to worry ;) Consider LTOing an Ada and a C++ module - you need to enable the C++ memory model at link-time so it is in effect when we process bit-fields. That will automatically enable it for the Ada pieces, too. >> Is the C++ memory model stuff going to be "ready" for 4.7? > > No, not if you expect me rewrite things every day. I don't expect you to rewrite things every day. Don't read every comment I make as a definite decision and order to you. I am a mere mortal, too, and the bitfield thing is, I must admit, still partially a mystery to myself (which is why I keep asking questions instead of simply providing you with definite answers). After all I pushed back my idea of lowering bitfield accesses somewhere on GIMPLE and I'm not sure if I get back to it for 4.7. And I definitely would consider 2) for that work. Btw, it would be nice if I weren't the only one reading your updated patches :/ I'm just punching holes where I see them and hope I and you learn something in that process. Richard.
