Re: [PATCH] [UPDATED] Fix another wrong-code bug with -fstrict-volatile-bitfields

2015-03-31 Thread Richard Biener
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:33:47, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> So - shouldn't the check be >> >> if (MEM_ALIGN (op0) < GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT (fieldmode)) >> return false; >> > > No. Because this example would access memory beyond the end of

[PATCH] [UPDATED] Fix another wrong-code bug with -fstrict-volatile-bitfields

2015-03-30 Thread Bernd Edlinger
Hi, On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:33:47, Richard Biener wrote: > > So - shouldn't the check be > > if (MEM_ALIGN (op0) < GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT (fieldmode)) > return false; > No. Because this example would access memory beyond the end of structure on m66k: volatile struct s {   unsigned x:15; } g; int x =