------- Comment #25 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-06-26 09:33 ------- Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-1.c execution at -O2 and above
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > ------- Comment #24 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-26 00:33 > ------- > It's not just the result type that changed. You actually changed the type of > the variable created to hold the group of bit fields, out of which we further > extract members that were not mapped to separate variables. This might affect > bitfield simplifications based on mode size rather than type width. I can't > say that's it, but I know I may have based some code on this assumption that > you broke. > > It also seems to me that this change to the base type of the variable breaks > sra_build_elt_assignment(), because the by-design conditions might no longer > be > met. Finally, I don't see how you could assume that the else block for the if > full-width bit-field could be extracted with as little as a cast. > > This is what jumped at me at first. I haven't actually built compilers based > on the state before and after your patch to tell whether that's it, but these > are the most likely culprits. > > I hope this helps, No, sorry. Please point me to the place where I changed the type of the variable created to hold the group of bit fields. Richard. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35518
