This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: pr39339 - invalid testcase or SRA bug?

From: Hariharan Sandanagobalane <hariharans at picochip dot com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
Cc: Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:02:24 +0000
Subject: Re: pr39339 - invalid testcase or SRA bug?
References: <49B66EAB.6060203@picochip.com> <20090310135815.GH4561@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com>

Yes, if i change the structure to bring the 3 1-bit members forward, to avoid padding, the testcase does pass.

Thanks to both of you for your help.

Cheers
Hari

Jakub Jelinek wrote:

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 01:44:11PM +0000, Hariharan Sandanagobalane wrote:

Since r144598, pr39339.c has been failing on picochip. On investigation, it looks to me that the testcase is illegal.
Relevant source code:
struct C
{
  unsigned int c;
  struct D
  {
    unsigned int columns : 4;

    unsigned int fore : 9;
    unsigned int back : 9;


As the testcase fails with buggy (pre r144598) gcc and succeeds after even
with:

    unsigned int fore : 12;
    unsigned int back : 6;


instead of :9, :9, I think we could change it (does it succeed on picochip
then)?  Or move to gcc.dg/torture/ and run only on int32plus targets.
Or add if (sizeof (int) != 4 || sizeof (struct D) != 4) return 0
to the beginning of main.

Jakub

References:
- pr39339 - invalid testcase or SRA bug?
  - From: Hariharan Sandanagobalane
- Re: pr39339 - invalid testcase or SRA bug?
  - From: Jakub Jelinek

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