[Bug middle-end/48124] [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] likely wrong code bug

["rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48124

--- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2012-05-31 10:48:19 UTC ---
On Thu, 31 May 2012, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48124
> 
> --- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-31 10:42:10 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #25)
> > On Thu, 31 May 2012, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > 
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48124
> > > 
> > > --- Comment #24 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-31 10:36:10 UTC ---
> > > > I'll test it on i?85-linux as well.  I don't have access to a 
> > > > strict-alignment platform - but the patch is essentially the same
> > > > as on trunk.  Can you give it a shot on sparc or do you forsee any
> > > > issues and thus would rather not backport this kind of change?  The
> > > > idea was that 4.7.1 would still be ok but later this kind of change
> > > > is obviously too intrusive.
> > > 
> > > Yes, I think it's appropriate for 4.7.1 if all the follow-ups are backported as
> > > well.  I'll give it a whirl on SPARC.
> > 
> > I think I have included them all in the patch I attached.  Meanwhile
> > multilib testing has finished on x86_64, a pure i?86 bootstrap still
> > pending (I'm also testing on arm and ppc/ppc64 now, but that may
> > take a while)
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186819
> is kind of a follow-up too.

Yes, that's what motivated me to look again at a possible backport
of the DECL_BIT_FIELD_REPRESENTATIVE patch.  I'd backport that separately
though.