On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > I see. Though the code does not affect layout but only access "layout" > > for bitfields. I'm fine with fixing the issues we run into elsewhere, > > just the langhook is a possibility I had in mind from the start, in > > case frontends differ in their memory model for bitfields. > > Understood. According to our internal testing, the issue we're discussing > was > the last problem introduced by the bitfield change, and I think that using > the > C/C++ model for C/C++-compatible bit fields is fine for GNAT. > > May I apply the patch I posted? It boostrapped/regtested fine on > x86-64/Linux.
Yes. Thanks, Richard.
