This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] fix wrong-code bug for -fstrict-volatile-bitfields

On 08/23/2012 03:51 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote: 

WRT only the code expansion aspects in store_fixed_bit_field(), would a
test of "STRICT_ALIGNMENT&&  MEM_ALIGN(op0)<  GET_MODE_ALIGNMENT(mode)"
be sufficient to detect instead of a packedp parameter?

As an experiment, I tried putting in an assertion to compare this test to the packedp flag at the point in extract_fixed_bit_field where packedp is currently being checked, and testing showed the two expressions are not equivalent (e.g., on gcc.c-torture/execute/20010518-2.c).

-Sandra

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]