https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62180
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62180
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62180
--- Comment #5 from Jan Čapek jan.capek at braiins dot cz ---
(In reply to DJ Delorie from comment #4)
Perhaps you need this patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg00993.html
DJ Delorie,
you are the man! The patch works as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62180
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62180
--- Comment #2 from Jan Čapek jan.capek at braiins dot cz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
C11 says something different here.
Can you be a bit more specific?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62180
--- Comment #3 from Jan Čapek jan.capek at braiins dot cz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
C11 says something different here.
I can see the following the -fstrict-volatile-bitfields documentation:
This option should be used if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62180
DJ Delorie dj at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dj at redhat dot com
