This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: fix 23714

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>
Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:02:53 -0700
Subject: Re: fix 23714
References: <20051014235513.GA20831@redhat.com> <200510151408.j9FE8ii1007875@53v30g16.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>

On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 04:08:44PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> B.t.w. do you have any suggestions about 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-10/msg00333.html
> which is apparently a related problem -- the test case there triggers
> the ICE in expand_assignment, both before and after your patch.

It seems like it should be possible to design a test case that
failed with optimization.  I'm not sure how to do that though.

The correct approach to this would be to actually support this.
That is, write a variant of store_bit_field+store_fixed_bit_field
that works with variable bitpos.  Likely similar for extract_*.

Do you have time to work on this?  If not, I'll have a look next
week.  I'm going to go ahead and check in the one patch now.

r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: fix 23714
  - From: Ulrich Weigand

References:
- Re: fix 23714
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: fix 23714
  - From: Ulrich Weigand

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