On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 8:25 PM Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 5/20/23 21:05, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 6:26 PM Jeff Law via Gcc-patches > > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 5/20/23 19:09, Andrew Pinski via Gcc-patches wrote: > >>> The problem is I used expand_expr with the target but > >>> we don't want to use the target here as it is the wrong > >>> mode for the original expression. The testcase would ICE > >>> deap down while trying to do a move to use the target. > >>> Anyways just calling expand_expr with NULL_EXPR fixes > >>> the issue. > >>> > >>> Committed as obvious after a bootstrap/test on x86_64-linux-gnu. > >>> > >>> PR middle-end/109919 > >>> > >>> gcc/ChangeLog: > >>> > >>> * expr.cc (expand_single_bit_test): Don't use the > >>> target for expand_expr. > >>> > >>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > >>> > >>> * gcc.c-torture/compile/pr109919-1.c: New test. > >> Thanks. I'll respin the targets that failed. If you don't hear from > >> me, assume everything is happy again after this fix. > > > > Oh, I am going to test on aarch64-linux-gnu too just in case. > > Expand is definitely something which I am not used to working on so I > > figured I had made a mistake somewhere. I suspect I still made a > > similar mistake later on too. > I'm seeing some execution failures. Building H8 bits now to debug as > it's the target I'm most familiar with. More info as it's available.
Is H8 big-endian? I could have messed that up. Thanks, Andrew Pinski > > jeff
