Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> So... can I/we move forward on this? Or will such a change be >> rejected?
> It's hard for me to get excited about something like this. It's > straightforward a programmer to write code that is clearly correct in > this sort of situation: just don't use a bitfield. In part, because of the ARM ABI issue, I think we ought to accept patches that fix this problem. It's true that GCC doesn't in general document these semantics, but users of some ABIs have expectations about how volatile bitfields will work. DJ, I'd suggest you look at: http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.ihi0042c/IHI0042C_aapcs.pdf and, in particular, \S 7.1.7.5, entitled "Volatile bit-fields". A first question is if these are the semantics that you're looking for in your project. If so, then we could collaborate with you on implementing them. If not, there may be still be some common parts. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713
