On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:36:04PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > I'm afraid I forgot the DECL_FIELD_OFFSET vs. DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET stuff
> > enough that I'm not sure what is the right fix for that case, maybe it would
> > work if we dropped the && TREE_CODE (DECL_FIELD_OFFSET (decl)) ==
> > I
On Wed, 10 Nov 2021, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 10:52:42AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > The only thing I'm unsure about is whether the test should be
> > > DECL_BIT_FIELD or DECL_BIT_FIELD_TYPE should be tested. I thought it
> > > doesn't matter, but it seems stor-layout
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 10:52:42AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > The only thing I'm unsure about is whether the test should be
> > DECL_BIT_FIELD or DECL_BIT_FIELD_TYPE should be tested. I thought it
> > doesn't matter, but it seems stor-layout.c in some cases clears
> > DECL_BIT_FIELD if their
On Wed, 10 Nov 2021, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> For PCC_BITFIELD_TYPE_MATTERS field_byte_offset has quite large code
> to deal with it since many years ago (see it e.g. in GCC 3.2, although it
> used to be on HOST_WIDE_INTs, then on double_ints, now on offset_ints).
> But that code apparently
> I think Ada has bitfields of aggregate types, so CCing Eric, though
> I'd hope it doesn't have bitfields where type size is smaller than
> field decl size like C++ has.
Assuming your sentence is written in the right sense :-) then, no, in Ada bit-
fields always have DECL_SIZE (bf) <= TYPE_SIZE (
Hi!
For PCC_BITFIELD_TYPE_MATTERS field_byte_offset has quite large code
to deal with it since many years ago (see it e.g. in GCC 3.2, although it
used to be on HOST_WIDE_INTs, then on double_ints, now on offset_ints).
But that code apparently isn't able to cope with members with empty class
types
