https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #29 from Wilco <wilco at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #26) > Did anybody test the patch? Testing on x86_64 will be quite pointless... Well that generates _18 = BIT_FIELD_REF <_2, 16, 14>; and becomes: ubfx x1, x20, 2, 16 This extracts bits 2-17 of the 30-bit value instead of bits 14-29. The issue is that we're using a bitfield reference on a value that is claimed not to be a bitfield in comment 6. So I can't see how using BIT_FIELD_REF could ever work correctly.
