[Bug middle-end/71509] Bitfield causes load hit store with larger store than load

[luoxhu at cn dot ibm.com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71509

Xiong Hu XS Luo <luoxhu at cn dot ibm.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #7 from Xiong Hu XS Luo <luoxhu at cn dot ibm.com> ---
Hi Richard, trying to figure out the issue recently, but get some questions
need your help. How is the status of the "proposed simple lowering of bitfield
accesses on GIMPLE", please? 
for "less conservative about DECL_BIT_FIELD_REPRESENTATIVE", do you mean we
choose large mode in GIMPLE stage, and make the decision when in target?
Thanks.

PS: As a newbie, can you tell how did you do to "Widening the representative"
:),  I am a bit confused about the best mode and where to process it, sometimes
big mode is better and sometimes smaller mode is better(from Segher's
comments).