On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:31:20AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Andrew Pinski
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > When I modified GCC to change the majority of bitfield accesses
>> > which were done via compo
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:31:20AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Andrew Pinski
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > When I modified GCC to change the majority of bitfield accesses
>> > which were done via compo
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:31:20AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Andrew Pinski
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > When I modified GCC to change the majority of bitfield accesses
> > which were done via component ref to BIT_FIELD_REF, SRA messes up
> > because when it doe
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Andrew Pinski
wrote:
> Hi,
> When I modified GCC to change the majority of bitfield accesses
> which were done via component ref to BIT_FIELD_REF, SRA messes up
> because when it does the replacement it still tries to use the
> BIT_FIELD_REF except it never places
Hi,
When I modified GCC to change the majority of bitfield accesses
which were done via component ref to BIT_FIELD_REF, SRA messes up
because when it does the replacement it still tries to use the
BIT_FIELD_REF except it never places the old value in the struct for
the BIT_FIELD_REF to work corre