On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 05:59:53PM -0800, Doug Kwan wrote: >> This is a backport for two upstream patches into our 4.6 branch. >> I submitted the first patch by Julian a while ago for backport but >> Richard Earnshaw pointed out a problem with the first patch. The second >> patch from Joey fixes that problem. This was tested on x86 and ARM. > > Why hasn't this been proposed for upstream 4.6 instead? > See PR51442.
It's indeed annoying to see arm related backports only going to vendor branches, not the last officially maintained GCC release branch (4.6). I keep getting local requests to include random patches to our 4.6 build to make "arm work at all". It seriously seems like having arm-linux-gnueabi as a primary target is a lie to our users. Arm maintainers - please consider maintaining at least the current release series and shift focus away from your vendor branches. Thanks, Richard. >> 2011-11-22 Doug Kwan <dougk...@google.com> >> >> Backport r171347 and r181549 from trunk. >> >> gcc/ >> 2011-03-23 Julian Brown <jul...@codesourcery.com> >> >> * expr.c (expand_expr_real_1): Only use BLKmode for volatile >> accesses which are not naturally aligned. >> >> 2011-11-20 Joey Ye <joey...@arm.com> >> >> * expr.c (expand_expr_real_1): Correctly handle strict volatile >> bitfield loads smaller than mode size. >> >> gcc/testsuite/ >> 2011-11-20 Joey Ye <joey...@arm.com> >> >> * gcc.dg/volatile-bitfields-1.c: New. > > Jakub
