On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, Eric Botcazou wrote:

> > 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.



Reply via email to