https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69851
--- Comment #8 from Benjamin Bannier ---
Thanks for the fast turn-around, that patch fixed the original issue like
expected. I encountered another similar issue in the same code base which still
causes an ICE, see 69889.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69851
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69851
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Feb 19 19:11:58 2016
New Revision: 233566
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233566&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/69851
* expr.c (store_field): Don't use bit-field p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69851
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 37738
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37738&action=edit
gcc6-pr69851.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69851
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Do we want a memcpy/memmove like assignment in this case, something else?
memcpy, yes. Why isn't that the default for whole bytes in memory, anyway?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69851
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> > Do we want a memcpy/memmove like assignment in this case, something else?
>
> memcpy, yes. Why isn't that the de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69851
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69851
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
