http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50521
--- Comment #14 from Henrik Nordström
2011-10-29 10:45:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> > See 7.1.7.5 second and third paragraph and the note just after.
>
> Is that means a statement
> a = b;
> always should be treat as if
> tmp = b;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50521
--- Comment #12 from Henrik Nordström
2011-10-28 17:46:15 UTC ---
Regarding the double load. In a statement like a = b, both a & be should be
individually accessed even if they refer to the same storage. So
bitfield.bits.a = bitfield.bits.c sho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50521
--- Comment #9 from Henrik Nordström
2011-10-28 07:32:48 UTC ---
C standard does not define any of this It's all implementation and platform ABI
dependent.
The C standard does define not storage size of a bit-field other than that it's
suffici
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50521
--- Comment #7 from Henrik Nordström
2011-10-28 01:59:34 UTC ---
Right. r171347 seem to be about fetches from bitfields while this change is
about stores?
An interesting test would be
bitfield.bits.a = bitfield.bits.c
which should load the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48190
--- Comment #3 from Henrik Nordström
2011-10-27 23:26:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 25640
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25640
trunk change 171655 backported to 4.6.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50521
Henrik Nordström changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||henrik at henriknordstrom
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48190
Henrik Nordström changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||henrik at henriknordstrom
