On Tue, 2023-07-11 at 13:04 +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
/* snip */
> Hi Xi,
> Your commit:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=63ae6bc60c0f67fb2791991bf4b6e7e0a907d420,
>
> seems to cause following regressions on arm-linux-gnueabihf:
> FAIL: g++.dg/vect/pr110557.cc -std=c++98
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 at 16:43, Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2023-07-10 at 10:33 +, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Jul 2023, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> >
> > > If a bit-field is signed and it's wider than the output type, we
> > > must
> > > ensure the extracted result sign-extended
On Mon, 2023-07-10 at 10:33 +, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2023, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
>
> > If a bit-field is signed and it's wider than the output type, we
> > must
> > ensure the extracted result sign-extended. But this was not handled
> > correctly.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> >
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> If a bit-field is signed and it's wider than the output type, we must
> ensure the extracted result sign-extended. But this was not handled
> correctly.
>
> For example:
>
> int x : 8;
> long y : 55;
> bool z : 1;
>
> The vectorized extraction
If a bit-field is signed and it's wider than the output type, we must
ensure the extracted result sign-extended. But this was not handled
correctly.
For example:
int x : 8;
long y : 55;
bool z : 1;
The vectorized extraction of y was:
vect__ifc__49.29_110 =
MEM [(struct I
