This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@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]

[Bug middle-end/52209] [4.7 Regression] wrong code at -O0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52209

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot       |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
                   |gnu.org                     |

--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-11 09:15:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 26640
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26640
gcc47-pr52209.patch

I don't think we need REDUCE_BIT_FIELD here, IMHO the old code was just fine
for the signed bitfields.  Because then op0 will be either 0 or -1, NOT on it
turns it into -1 or 0 and REDUCE_BIT_FIELD would do nothing on that.  Richard's
change was IMHO only needed for unsigned bitfields.


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