From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-381386-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 18216 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2012 18:42:52 -0000
Received: (qmail 18206 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jan 2012 18:42:51 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,TW_ZJ
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, 26 Jan 2012 18:42:39 +0000
From: "ubizjak at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/51994] [4.6/4.7 Regression] git-1.7.8.3 miscompiled due to negative bitpos from get_inner_reference
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:40:00 -0000
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: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ubizjak at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.3
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-51994-4-JIh1sRnCCP@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51994-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51994-4@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
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: 2012-01/txt/msg03061.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51994

--- Comment #22 from Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> 2012-01-26 18:41:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)

> I agree that making get_inner_reference artificially return a non-zero poffset
> would most certainly be problematic as this would change the semantics.  But
> it's also clear that the lower level bit-field manipulation routines aren't
> really prepared to deal with negative stuff.  So I think that we shouldn't
> change the prototypes of these routines, but instead patch up callers that
> forward the values returned by get_inner_reference to these routines.
> 
> Adding assertions in these routines could indeed help.

I have added these. But.. could you please take the fix to this problem
further?