From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id C37663858C50; Wed,  8 Feb 2023 12:41:52 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C37663858C50
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1675860112;
	bh=OWnb0v7WqQ1DUutRxBUeuwEvEk4GosqD6mqFNmSGJZo=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=HCva+UIjPafW1xRitb49LdLDA4R8VTaJlP0GwOCmzbWD/GZ9mZmMG3Asbnsy+CwBQ
	 aUQjrBRqOU61jv3bEBJI0qGz7RhC4K4zPNHf40yc2OEf0d8/AbGq8nF60rz9x62vhl
	 C7UF4tmgQMLExxecnYT/97s2wkON02k2Kn6TK0KE=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?W0J1ZyB0cmVlLW9wdGltaXphdGlvbi8xMDg2ODhdIFsxMyBSZWdy?=
 =?UTF-8?B?ZXNzaW9uXSBlcnJvcjog4oCYYml0X2ZpZWxkX3JlZuKAmSBvZiBub24tbW9k?=
 =?UTF-8?B?ZS1wcmVjaXNpb24gb3BlcmFuZA==?=
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2023 12:41:52 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-108688-4-497eVcMur8@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108688-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108688-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D108688

--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> Oh I might have a fix for this already just didn't have a testcase for the
> upstream compiler at the time.

Note, it is just the first case from the above because @0 already ought to =
be
guaranteed to have mode precision because BIT_INSERT_EXPR requires it too.
On the other side, we should for the first case differentiate between @1 has
mode precision, then we can do what we do right now, or when isize =3D=3D r=
size and
rpos =3D=3D ipos (then we can just simplify to possibly casted @1) and fina=
lly
otherwise, IMHO we should just punt.=