> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 6:23 PM
>
> Yes - I was specifically looking for an early out to avoid wrong-code.
> So, is size % BITS_PER_UNIT != 0 a working fix to avoid the wrong-code
> issues with bitfields (on big-endian targets)?
I'm
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
>> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 5:32 PM
>> > 4) Cast value stored in a according to the size of b by removing bits of
>> > highest weight (via VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR).
>>
>> Fact is th
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 5:32 PM
> > 4) Cast value stored in a according to the size of b by removing bits of
> > highest weight (via VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR).
>
> Fact is that 4) already is not working.
>
> /* We are at the end of walk,
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
> Greetings everybody,
>
> I'm seeking your advice on how to best solve a bug. The issue has to do with
> folding a bitfield contained in a union. Consider the following example:
>
> union U {
> unsigned int a:24;
> unsigned int b:20;
Greetings everybody,
I'm seeking your advice on how to best solve a bug. The issue has to do with
folding a bitfield contained in a union. Consider the following example:
union U {
unsigned int a:24;
unsigned int b:20;
} u = { .a = 0x345678 };
int foo (void)
{
return u.b;
}
Currently, fo
