> I see.  Though the code does not affect layout but only access "layout"
> for bitfields.  I'm fine with fixing the issues we run into elsewhere,
> just the langhook is a possibility I had in mind from the start, in
> case frontends differ in their memory model for bitfields.

Understood.  According to our internal testing, the issue we're discussing was 
the last problem introduced by the bitfield change, and I think that using the 
C/C++ model for C/C++-compatible bit fields is fine for GNAT.

May I apply the patch I posted?  It boostrapped/regtested fine on x86-64/Linux.

Eric Botcazou

Reply via email to