On Thu, 11 Aug 2016, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 08/11/16, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > The patch looks mostly ok, but
> >
> > + else
> > + {
> > + boff >>= LOG2_BITS_PER_UNIT;
> > + boff += tree_to_uhwi (component_ref_field_offset (ref));
> > + coff = size_bin
On 08/11/16, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> The patch looks mostly ok, but
>
> + else
> + {
> + boff >>= LOG2_BITS_PER_UNIT;
> + boff += tree_to_uhwi (component_ref_field_offset (ref));
> + coff = size_binop (MINUS_EXPR, coff, ssize_int (boff));
>
> how can we be su
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 08/10/16 14:29, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Aug 2016, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> >> We know that the difference between the innermost ref
> >> and the outer ref is byte-aligned, but we do not know
> >> that the same is true for offset between th
On 08/10/16 14:29, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Aug 2016, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> We know that the difference between the innermost ref
>> and the outer ref is byte-aligned, but we do not know
>> that the same is true for offset between the COMPONENT_REF
>> and the outer ref.
>>
>> I mean bof
On Tue, 9 Aug 2016, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 08/09/16 22:48, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> >> I think from Eric's comment in get_inner_ref it can be possible
> >> in Ada that the outer object is accidentally byte-aligned
> >> but the inner reference is not. In that case I think it is
> >> better to ge
> I tried to translate the c-test case to an equivalent ada test case with
> my not-so-fluent Ada speak...
>
> So here is a test case that *actually* hits the if ((boff % BITS_PER_UNIT)
> != 0) code path.
I see, well done then.
> Before my patch there was an unaligned SImode access, and with
> t
On 08/10/16, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>On 08/09/16 22:48, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> I think from Eric's comment in get_inner_ref it can be possible
>>> in Ada that the outer object is accidentally byte-aligned
>>> but the inner reference is not. In that case I think it is
>>> better to generate a BIT_
On 08/09/16 22:48, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> I think from Eric's comment in get_inner_ref it can be possible
>> in Ada that the outer object is accidentally byte-aligned
>> but the inner reference is not. In that case I think it is
>> better to generate a BIT_FIELD_REF instead of a COMPONENT_REF.
>
> I think from Eric's comment in get_inner_ref it can be possible
> in Ada that the outer object is accidentally byte-aligned
> but the inner reference is not. In that case I think it is
> better to generate a BIT_FIELD_REF instead of a COMPONENT_REF.
The patch says get_bit_range instead... The
On 08/09/16 09:29, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2016, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>>
>> As described in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71083
>> we generate unaligned accesses because tree-predcom rewrites
>> bitfield and packed accesses in a way that looses the proper
>
On Mon, 8 Aug 2016, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> As described in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71083
> we generate unaligned accesses because tree-predcom rewrites
> bitfield and packed accesses in a way that looses the proper
> alignment information.
>
> The attached patch
Hi!
As described in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71083
we generate unaligned accesses because tree-predcom rewrites
bitfield and packed accesses in a way that looses the proper
alignment information.
The attached patch fixes this by re-using the gimple memory
expression from the
12 matches
Mail list logo
