------- Comment #9 from jason dot morgan at vpnsolutions dot uk dot com 2006-09-17 15:14 ------- Subject: RE: compiler generates incorrect ARM instructions when using long bitfields
Surely that's the definition of a bug? I've heard of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it.." but never "If it's always been broke, its probably supposed to be like that.." Its a bit like the guy with a knackered car that never fixes it because "It's always made that noise" :) j. -----Original Message----- From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 17 September 2006 09:52 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Bug target/28568] compiler generates incorrect ARM instructions when using long bitfields ------- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-17 08:51 ------- (In reply to comment #7) > Subject: RE: compiler generates incorrect ARM instructions when using long > bitfields > > Why not? What are the criteria? It is obviously wrong and would be so > simple to fix, even optionally with a > runtime option. It just is not a regression since it has been wrong since the begining of time for GCC. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|major |normal Component|c |target http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28568 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28568
