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: Need advice with store_bit_field and its call chain


Jim Wilson <wilson@specifixinc.com> writes:

> Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> I have not unsnarled the third clause, but it doesn't matter,
>> because the second one is the problem.  The
>> bitsize is 128, but GET_MODE_BITSIZE (XFmode) is 96
>> (really should be 80, but that breaks too much other
>> stuff).  The bitsize is coming from store_constructor:
>
> The problem arises because we have GET_MODE_SIZE (XFmode) == 16, and
> GET_MODE_BITSIZE (XFmode) == 96, and thus the byte size is not bitsize
> * BITS_PER_UNIT.  So I think you should test for that.

Could you please look at what I and Graham ended up putting in
store_bit_field/extract_bit_field, and tell me if you think it's
correct?  It is not exactly the same as this, but I think it ought to
have the same effect.

zw


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