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
> the last problem introduced by the bitfield change, and I think that using
> 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