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] |
On 12/09/13 15:41, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Ugh. I don't care that much :-) If you want to handle it, go ahead. I would suggest a comment indicating why we've chosen to handle it.But isn't the test bogus if it depends on the result of loading a zero sized bitfield?That's supported in Ada and the result is specified, it's the only allowed value of the type of the bitfield (the type has precision 0 and is biased if this value isn't zero). So this boils down to an implementation choice: either we specifically detect this case up in the chain or we let it flow down as usual. But since we handle the stores in an uniform way, I think that it could make sense to do the same for the loads.
The only question left is would it be better to handle it in extract_bit_field to catch other cases, or is that too late?
jeff
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |