Re: [PATCH] Fix store_split_bit_field (PR middle-end/57344)

2013-05-23 Thread Richard Biener
On Tue, 21 May 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > My PR52979 patch introduced following regression in store_split_bit_field. > If op0 is a REG or SUBREG, then the code was assuming that unit is still > BITS_PER_WORD, which isn't the case after PR52979. This patch changes > those spots to no lo

[PATCH] Fix store_split_bit_field (PR middle-end/57344)

2013-05-23 Thread Jakub Jelinek
Hi! My PR52979 patch introduced following regression in store_split_bit_field. If op0 is a REG or SUBREG, then the code was assuming that unit is still BITS_PER_WORD, which isn't the case after PR52979. This patch changes those spots to no longer assume that (second and third hunks). The first hu