From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 10DB0385DC09; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:59:26 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 10DB0385DC09 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1666349966; bh=OalgMs+9UvuYdTVzF8tOFOjkxcAmlp3LhkPtHfph2Es=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=mTMVr7EuDYbNlRaybS8CxYuslNA5K8v1kiGbd6L9k//9SqH71Ukm6vWya4oOhRTI5 FhRlfl57yTN5IkHfdTCDkL/jCCMT240kWfGxMTM5LXLHyWMfBsSSsfpQN1UR1+bUoO 1dJBm2FOHkt8IkU3UHU8u6hsCIye0Aa95l4ZE8SU= From: "avieira at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug testsuite/107338] new test case gcc.dg/vect/vect-bitfield-read-7.c in r13-3413-ge10ca9544632db fails Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:59:24 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: testsuite-fail X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: avieira at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107338 --- Comment #3 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org --- Hi Kewen, I believe you are right. I was waiting for a powerpc machine in the board f= arm, but I suspect I can reproduce this with an aarch64 BE target and I should be able to confirm. But your reasoning seems valid to me. Because of the widening the shift_n becomes 32-shift_n-mask_width, but the start of the bitfield didn't move by widening the container, so it is still 16 - shift_n - mask_width bits away = from the start of the container. Moving the calculation before the widening seems like the neatest solution = to me, there's no point in keeping the old type around I think. Do you want to produce a patch for this, seeing you solved it?=