> Then I think we can put all bits together now: > > 1. Let Sandra apply her Bit-fields patch "reimplement > -fstrict-volatile-bitfields v4, part 1/2" which was > posted here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg02058.html > and approved here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg01476.html > > 2. As follow-Up I'd like to apply this update-patch, which fixes the > recursion in the extract_split_bit_field and fixes the C++ memory > model for -fstrict-volatile-bitfields: > > which was posted here: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02046.html and approved here: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg00091.html > > 3. Then this patch itself "Strict volatile bit-fields clean-up, Take 2". > > 4. And finally the Clean-up patch: "Strict volatile bit-fields clean-up" > which removes the dependencies on > the variable flag_strict_volatile_bitfields > from expand_assignment and expand_expr_real_1. And uses the access mode > of the field > instead of the structure mode. > > which was posted here: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02479.html and approved here: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-12/msg00086.html
Nice work btw, no regressions (at least in C and Ada) on x86, x86-64, PowerPC, IA-64, SPARC and SPARC64, which was not a given thing IMO. -- Eric Botcazou
