Re: [patch] [4.6] Backport strict-volatile-bitfields fix PR51200

2012-02-15 Thread Richard Guenther
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Ye Joey joey.ye...@gmail.com wrote: Ping^2 All hunks apart from the expr.c hunk from 182545 are ok (thus, all hunks that are explicitly guarded with -fstrict-volatile-bitfields). Please use -p for diffs, I couldn't spot the place in expr.c you patch, the

Re: [patch] [4.6] Backport strict-volatile-bitfields fix PR51200

2012-02-14 Thread Ye Joey
Ping^2 On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Ye Joey joey.ye...@gmail.com wrote: Ping On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Ye Joey joey.ye...@gmail.com wrote: Fix PR51200. Backport trunk 182545, 182649, 182685 to 4.6. OK to 4.6? - Joey        2011-12-20  Bernd Schmidt  ber...@codesourcery.com

Re: [patch] [4.6] Backport strict-volatile-bitfields fix PR51200

2012-01-15 Thread Ye Joey
Ping On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Ye Joey joey.ye...@gmail.com wrote: Fix PR51200. Backport trunk 182545, 182649, 182685 to 4.6. OK to 4.6? - Joey        2011-12-20  Bernd Schmidt  ber...@codesourcery.com        PR middle-end/51200        * expr.c (store_field): Avoid a direct

[patch] [4.6] Backport strict-volatile-bitfields fix PR51200

2011-12-26 Thread Ye Joey
Fix PR51200. Backport trunk 182545, 182649, 182685 to 4.6. OK to 4.6? - Joey 2011-12-20 Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com PR middle-end/51200 * expr.c (store_field): Avoid a direct store if the mode is larger than the size of the bit field. *