On 02/07/2012 05:32 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
struct A {
virtual void f();
int f1 : 1;<--- bit 64
};
struct B : public A {
int f2 : 1; // { dg-warning "ABI" }<--- bit 65
int : 0;
int f3 : 4;
int f4 : 3;
};
It is my understanding that f1 and f2 must be in distinct memory
regions. So
Testcase is for example g++.dg/abi/bitfield5.C, bit layout annotated:
struct A {
virtual void f();
int f1 : 1;<--- bit 64
};
struct B : public A {
int f2 : 1; // { dg-warning "ABI" }<--- bit 65
int : 0;
int f3 : 4;
int f4 : 3;
};
maybe it was a bug (above happens with -fabi
On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > >
> > > > Linus Torvalds writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Seriously - is there any real argument *agains
On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> >
> > > Linus Torvalds writes:
> > >
> > > > Seriously - is there any real argument *against* just using the base
> > > > type as a hint for access size?
(Somehow my reply was private to Aldy ... forwarding to gcc-patches
now, given that it contains a patch and we changed topics)
On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
> > Linus Torvalds writes:
> >
> > > Seriously - is there any real argument
