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/56362] bitfield refs over-optimized?


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56362

--- Comment #2 from Jay <jay.krell at cornell dot edu> 2013-02-21 08:07:15 UTC ---
Looking back at other data I have..this has something to do with configure
-enable-checking..but I don't know exactly what.

I am *guessing* that the signedness of the bitfield ref and the signedess of
the element could vary. Stripping of the bitfield ref would therefore change
the type of the expression, and that could then be sign extended.

I doubt I can construct a repro in C, but I can poke around to see if C or Java
or Ada can produce such bitfield refs..


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