Eric Botcazou <ebotca...@adacore.com> writes: >> OK. The current recursive force-mem-to-reg cases in store_bit_field_1 >> and extract_bit_field_1 don't handle -fstrict-volatile-bitfields at all, >> so this patch was trying to fix what seemed like an oversight. Is it OK >> to leave the code as-is (not handling -fstrict-volatile-bitfields), >> or do I need to add new code to the expmed.c routines? > > The former, I think.
OK, I left this patch out and removed the associated constructor argument from patch 7. Richard
