http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58970
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #12)
> I meant the change here is not necessary, because after the
> if (*bitpos < 0) {...},
> *offset can no longer be NULL, and I'd leave the assertion untouched.
Sure, if *bitpos was initially negative, then *offset won't be NULL there.
But what I mean, are you sure that non-negative *bitpos will never be smaller
than bitoffset if *offset is NULL? Of course not on this testcase...
