https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45144
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45144
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
--- Comment #4 from jiez at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-05 03:06 ---
Subject: Bug 45144
Author: jiez
Date: Thu Aug 5 03:05:35 2010
New Revision: 162897
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162897
Log:
PR tree-optimization/45144
* tree-sra.c (type_consi
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Keywo
--- Comment #3 from jiez at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-02 04:34 ---
Aggregates Copy Propagation should be able to fix this, too.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45144
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-31 09:25 ---
I agree. SRA might be even the place to do this lowering in. For ease of
use re-surrecting BIT_FIELD_EXPR from the mem-ref branch might turn out
useful for this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-30 17:09 ---
The solution IMNSHO is to detect adjacent bitfield operations that can be
handled together and lower bitfield ops still at the tree level, though soon
before expansion, rather than disabling SRA for bitfields.
--
