* [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store
2012-05-21 15:23 [Bug tree-optimization/53438] New: [4.7 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-21 15:19 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-21 15:22 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (19 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-21 15:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
--- Comment #1 from William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-21 15:17:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 27462
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27462
Unreduced testcase
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store
2012-05-21 15:23 [Bug tree-optimization/53438] New: [4.7 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-21 15:19 ` [Bug tree-optimization/53438] " wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-21 15:22 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-22 5:35 ` [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7/4.8 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (18 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-21 15:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
--- Comment #2 from William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-21 15:21:19 UTC ---
Whoops, left off the compile command:
g++ -o YarrPattern.o -S -O3 ./YarrPattern.ii
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store
2012-05-21 15:23 [Bug tree-optimization/53438] New: [4.7 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-21 15:19 ` [Bug tree-optimization/53438] " wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-21 15:22 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-22 5:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-22 5:36 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-22 5:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.2
Summary|[4.7 Regression] Bitfield |[4.7/4.8 Regression]
|store replaced with |Bitfield store replaced
|full-byte store |with full-byte store
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store
2012-05-21 15:23 [Bug tree-optimization/53438] New: [4.7 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-22 5:35 ` [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7/4.8 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-22 5:36 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-22 7:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-22 5:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-22 05:34:11 UTC ---
I see what happens. I think SRA is taking the right hand side's type rather
than look at the left hand side where it is a bitfield.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store
2012-05-21 15:23 [Bug tree-optimization/53438] New: [4.7 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-22 5:36 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-22 7:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-22 10:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-22 7:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.7.2 |4.7.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store
2012-05-21 15:23 [Bug tree-optimization/53438] New: [4.7 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-22 7:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-22 10:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-22 10:50 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-22 10:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-22 09:03:53 UTC ---
It should be a bitfield on both sides, otherwise the GIMPLE verifier would
complain.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store
2012-05-21 15:23 [Bug tree-optimization/53438] New: [4.7 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-22 10:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-22 10:50 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-22 12:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-22 10:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2012-05-22
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-22 10:47:53 UTC ---
Confirmed. The following C testcase works correctly:
struct S { _Bool b : 1; char c : 7; };
void bar (struct S s)
{
if (s.c != 7)
abort ();
}
int foo (_Bool b)
{
struct S s;
s.c = 7;
s.b = b;
bar (s);
return s.c;
}
but for some reason your reduced testcase ends up producing a MEM_REF
instead of a component-ref to store b instead.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store
2012-05-21 15:23 [Bug tree-optimization/53438] New: [4.7 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-22 10:50 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-22 12:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-22 13:19 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-22 12:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-22 11:07:15 UTC ---
I think the following should fix it:
Index: gcc/tree-sra.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/tree-sra.c (revision 187767)
+++ gcc/tree-sra.c (working copy)
@@ -1001,9 +1001,10 @@ build_access_from_expr_1 (tree expr, gim
@@ -2096,9 +2097,12 @@ analyze_access_subtree (struct access *r
&& (TREE_CODE (root->type) != INTEGER_TYPE
|| TYPE_PRECISION (root->type) != root->size)
/* But leave bitfield accesses alone. */
- && (root->offset % BITS_PER_UNIT) == 0)
+ && (TREE_CODE (root->expr) != COMPONENT_REF
+ || !DECL_BIT_FIELD (TREE_OPERAND (root->expr, 1))))
{
tree rt = root->type;
+ gcc_assert ((root->offset % BITS_PER_UNIT) == 0
+ && (root->size % BITS_PER_UNIT) == 0);
root->type = build_nonstandard_integer_type (root->size,
TYPE_UNSIGNED (rt));
root->expr = build_ref_for_offset (UNKNOWN_LOCATION,
can you verify that, thus give it a bootstrap & regtest run?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store
2012-05-21 15:23 [Bug tree-optimization/53438] New: [4.7 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-22 12:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-22 13:19 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-22 18:22 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-22 13:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-22 13:13:04 UTC ---
Yep, I'll check it out. Thanks, Richard!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store
2012-05-21 15:23 [Bug tree-optimization/53438] New: [4.7 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-22 13:19 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-22 18:22 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-23 7:15 ` rguenther at suse dot de
` (10 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-22 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
--- Comment #8 from William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-22 18:04:21 UTC ---
Richard, the patch looks good. It fixed the reduced test case, solves the
customer problem, and bootstraps on powerpc64-linux with no regressions.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store
2012-05-21 15:23 [Bug tree-optimization/53438] New: [4.7 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-22 18:22 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-23 7:15 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2012-05-23 12:36 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: rguenther at suse dot de @ 2012-05-23 7:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2012-05-23 07:04:51 UTC ---
On Tue, 22 May 2012, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
>
> --- Comment #8 from William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-22 18:04:21 UTC ---
> Richard, the patch looks good. It fixed the reduced test case, solves the
> customer problem, and bootstraps on powerpc64-linux with no regressions.
It's going to take me a few days until I can get to this, so, can you
install the patch on trunk with a suitable ChangeLog entry? I'll take
care of backporting it then in a few days.
Thx.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store
2012-05-21 15:23 [Bug tree-optimization/53438] New: [4.7 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-23 7:15 ` rguenther at suse dot de
@ 2012-05-23 12:36 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-23 13:10 ` rguenther at suse dot de
` (8 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-23 12:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
--- Comment #10 from William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-23 12:35:11 UTC ---
Sure. My testing was on 4.7, so I'll sanity-test trunk first. I can commit
the backport next week also, assuming no fallout between now and then.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store
2012-05-21 15:23 [Bug tree-optimization/53438] New: [4.7 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-23 12:36 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-23 13:10 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2012-05-23 17:48 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: rguenther at suse dot de @ 2012-05-23 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2012-05-23 12:39:31 UTC ---
On Wed, 23 May 2012, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
>
> --- Comment #10 from William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-23 12:35:11 UTC ---
> Sure. My testing was on 4.7, so I'll sanity-test trunk first. I can commit
> the backport next week also, assuming no fallout between now and then.
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store
2012-05-21 15:23 [Bug tree-optimization/53438] New: [4.7 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-23 13:10 ` rguenther at suse dot de
@ 2012-05-23 17:48 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-25 15:38 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-23 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
--- Comment #12 from William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-23 17:38:44 UTC ---
Hm, the auto-commenter isn't working. Committed to trunk:
2012-05-23 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
PR tree-optimization/53438
* tree-sra.c (analyze_access_subtree): Correct bitfield exclusion.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store
2012-05-21 15:23 [Bug tree-optimization/53438] New: [4.7 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-23 17:48 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-25 15:38 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-25 15:49 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-25 15:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-25 15:13:50 UTC ---
It didn't work because you've used the patch as svn commit message instead of
ChangeLog entry.
Anyway, would it be possible to have a testcase for the gcc testsuite too?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store
2012-05-21 15:23 [Bug tree-optimization/53438] New: [4.7 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-25 15:38 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-25 15:49 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-28 14:03 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-25 15:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
--- Comment #14 from William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-25 15:37:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> It didn't work because you've used the patch as svn commit message instead of
> ChangeLog entry.
Whoops, found a new kind of mistake to make. :)
> Anyway, would it be possible to have a testcase for the gcc testsuite too?
I've been trying, but so far haven't been able to come up with anything other
than the enormous "reduced" testcase. Seems it may require a combination of
templates and inlining to get the bitfield access in the right form to exhibit
the bug, but I haven't figured it out yet. Ideas welcome.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store
2012-05-21 15:23 [Bug tree-optimization/53438] New: [4.7 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-25 15:49 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-28 14:03 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-28 14:09 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-28 14:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
--- Comment #15 from William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-28 13:58:30 UTC ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Mon May 28 13:58:18 2012
New Revision: 187930
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187930
Log:
2012-05-28 Bill Schmidt <wschmidt@linux.ibm.com>
Backport from mainline
2012-05-23 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
PR tree-optimization/53438
* tree-sra.c (analyze_access_subtree): Correct bitfield exclusion.
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_7-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_7-branch/gcc/tree-sra.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store
2012-05-21 15:23 [Bug tree-optimization/53438] New: [4.7 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-28 14:03 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-28 14:09 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-28 14:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-28 14:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #16 from William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-28 14:02:12 UTC ---
Fixed. Thanks, Richard!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store
2012-05-21 15:23 [Bug tree-optimization/53438] New: [4.7 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-28 14:09 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-28 14:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-28 14:48 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-28 23:07 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-28 14:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rockeet at gmail dot com
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-28 14:09:05 UTC ---
*** Bug 53505 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store
2012-05-21 15:23 [Bug tree-optimization/53438] New: [4.7 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-28 14:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-28 14:48 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-05-28 23:07 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-28 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-28 14:34:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> > Anyway, would it be possible to have a testcase for the gcc testsuite too?
>
> I've been trying, but so far haven't been able to come up with anything other
> than the enormous "reduced" testcase. Seems it may require a combination of
> templates and inlining to get the bitfield access in the right form to exhibit
> the bug, but I haven't figured it out yet. Ideas welcome.
Ok, we now have a testcase in the testsuite from the dup PR:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=187931
(and r187932 for 4.7).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store
2012-05-21 15:23 [Bug tree-optimization/53438] New: [4.7 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2012-05-28 14:48 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-05-28 23:07 ` wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-05-28 23:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53438
--- Comment #19 from William J. Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-28 22:31:40 UTC ---
Excellent. Thanks, Jakub.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread