This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/53505] [4.7/4.8 Regression] bitfield with bool type generated broken object file
- From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 13:39:12 +0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/53505] [4.7/4.8 Regression] bitfield with bool type generated broken object file
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-53505-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53505
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-28 13:39:12 UTC ---
That revision added:
+ /* But leave bitfield accesses alone. */
+ && (root->offset % BITS_PER_UNIT) == 0)
Here root->offset % BITS_PER_UNIT is 0, still it is a bitfield and IMHO we
should leave it alone. The question is how to differentiate bitfields at byte
boundary offsets from e.g. non-bitfield _Bool where it should be user's
responsibility to keep just 0 or 1 in the whole byte.