[Bug middle-end/32244] bit-field: optimization BUG

2008-01-25 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-25 15:37 --- Fixed. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug middle-end/32244] bit-field: optimization BUG

2008-01-25 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-25 15:33 --- Subject: Bug 32244 Author: rguenth Date: Fri Jan 25 15:33:09 2008 New Revision: 131828 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131828 Log: 2008-01-25 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR

[Bug middle-end/32244] bit-field: optimization BUG

2008-01-25 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-25 14:21 --- I split off the rotate issues to PR34971. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug middle-end/32244] bit-field: optimization BUG

2008-01-25 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-25 13:23 --- Uh, all is broken ;) 1) we don't reduce shift or rotate results 2) we do wrong folding of rotates 3) we do wrong expansion of rotates struct foo { unsigned long long b:40; } x; extern void abort (void);

[Bug middle-end/32244] bit-field: optimization BUG

2007-12-11 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-11 13:54 --- Very similar (apart from typeof) to PR30332. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/32244] bit-field: optimization BUG

2007-06-08 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-08 10:28 --- Confirmed. We are wrongly expanding ;; D.2027 = D.2026 << 32 (insn 18 17 0 (parallel [ (set (reg:DI 59 [ D.2027 ]) (ashift:DI (reg:DI 60 [ D.2026 ]) (const_int 32 [0x