This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Bit-field patch, resurrected
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 02:35, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> bit-field types) to expr.c. After all, those trees on bit-field types are
> a correct representation of the required semantics, and simpler than
> something with REDUCE_BIT_FIELD transformation in it - so why shouldn't
> tree-ssa transformations observe this and revert to the original trees?
I think it is reasonable to ask that anyone transforming trees respect
the TYPE_PRECISION. The question is whether tree-ssa does or not. And
if it doesn't, whether it can be fixed. If this wasn't considered when
tree-ssa was designed, then it might not be possible to fix it now, in
which case the expand_expr changes are pointless, as they will just
break in a few weeks when tree-ssa gets merged into mainline. I think
someone needs to check, and that someone is probably me.
At a quick glance, tree-ssa seems to use fold, and fold does respect
TYPE_PRECISION, so maybe it is OK, but I'd like to verify this.
--
Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com