From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-356342-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 7198 invoked by alias); 12 May 2011 11:37:54 -0000
Received: (qmail 7189 invoked by uid 22791); 12 May 2011 11:37:53 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 May 2011 11:37:06 +0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/48973] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Inliner bug with one-bit (1-bit) bitfield
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.3.6
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-48973-4-Ii9QTUOf63@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-48973-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-48973-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:48:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg01009.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48973

--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-05-12 10:31:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> "Fixed" with bitfield lowering where we expand from
> 
>   v.0_1 = v;
>   BF.1_3 = MEM[(struct S *)&s];
>   D.2700_4 = BF.1_3 & -2;
>   D.2702_6 = v.0_1 < 0;
>   BF.1_7 = D.2702_6 | D.2700_4;
>   MEM[(struct S *)&s] = BF.1_7;
>   D.2693_9 = (<unnamed-signed:1>) BF.1_7;
>   D.2694_10 = (unsigned int) D.2693_9;
>   if (D.2694_10 != 4294967295)
> 
> similar to what Jakub proposed to do manually.

Well, if bitfield lowering does this and nothing cleans it up, there is room
for improvement.  It would be sad if it couldn't be optimized already at the
tree level back to:
   v.0_1 = v;
   BF.1_3 = MEM[(struct S *)&s];
   D.2700_4 = BF.1_3 & -2;
   D.2702_6 = v.0_1 < 0;
   BF.1_7 = D.2702_6 | D.2700_4;
   MEM[(struct S *)&s] = BF.1_7;
   D.2693_9 = (<unnamed-signed:1>) D.2702_6;  // change here.  Assuming D.2702
                                              // is either > 1 precision, or
                                              // unsigned
   D.2694_10 = (unsigned int) D.2693_9;
   if (D.2694_10 != 4294967295)