I have some nit-picky documentation suggestions about this patch....
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00100.html
+ warning_at (input_location, OPT_Wportable_volatility,
+ "the code to accesses this volatile member is dependent on"
+ " whether -fstrict-volatile-bitfields is used;"
+ " accessing device registers may depend on this option"
+ " however it contradicts the C11/C++11 memory model");
I'd simplify this to something like
"access to volatile member may not conform to the C11/C++11"
" memory model if -fstrict-volatile-bitfields is in effect"
--- gcc/c-family/c.opt 2013-05-28 21:55:10.000000000 +0200
+++ gcc/c-family/c.opt 2013-07-13 11:02:38.000000000 +0200
@@ -629,6 +629,10 @@ Wpointer-to-int-cast
C ObjC Var(warn_pointer_to_int_cast) Init(1) Warning
Warn when a pointer is cast to an integer of a different size
+Wportable-volatility
+C ObjC C++ ObjC++ Var(warn_portable_volatility) Warning
+Warn about code for which separate incompatible definitions exist even within
gcc
+
This seems too vague. How about just
Warn about potentially nonportable volatile memory accesses
+@item -Wportable-volatility
+@opindex Wportable-volatility
+@opindex Wno-portable-volatility
+Warn about code which accesses volatile structure members for
s/which/that/
+which different ABI specifications may exist whether in some
+language standard or in a target-specific ABI document.
+
+For instance on the ARM architecture AAPCS specifies how to
+access volatile bit-fields. But for C/C++ there exists a
+language standard, the C11/C++11 memory model. GCC tries to
+follow the latter by default unless -fstrict-volatile-bitfields
+is used.
+
+As an example this option will warn about code which accesses
+packed volatile structure members which may be dependent on
+whether -fstrict-volatile-bitfields is used or not.
I'd replace the last two paragraphs with just:
In particular, this option causes GCC to warn about volatile memory
accesses for which use of the @option{-fstrict-volatile-bitfields}
option causes code to be generated that does not conform to the
C11/C++11 memory model.
I'd also like to see a cross-reference added to the documentation for
-fstrict-volatile-bitfields, like:
You can use @option{-Wportable-volatility} to make GCC issue warnings
about volatile structure accesses affected by
@option{-fstrict-volatile-bitfields}.
-Sandra
