Re: [PATCH] Fix postincrement/decrement of a bitfield (PR middle-end/55750)

2012-12-20 Thread rguenther
Jakub Jelinek wrote: >Hi! > >As the following testcase shows, the !is_gimple_min_lval code would for >bit >fields want to take address of those bitfields and dereference it, >which of >course leads to ICEs. > >As discussed with Richard on IRC, this code is not needed at all since >PR48814 fix, so

[PATCH] Fix postincrement/decrement of a bitfield (PR middle-end/55750)

2012-12-20 Thread Jakub Jelinek
Hi! As the following testcase shows, the !is_gimple_min_lval code would for bit fields want to take address of those bitfields and dereference it, which of course leads to ICEs. As discussed with Richard on IRC, this code is not needed at all since PR48814 fix, so there is no need to teach it abo