From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-392865-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 21909 invoked by alias); 25 May 2012 15:38:45 -0000
Received: (qmail 21895 invoked by uid 22791); 25 May 2012 15:38:44 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,TW_SV
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; Fri, 25 May 2012 15:38:31 +0000
From: "wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/53438] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bitfield store replaced with full-byte store
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 15:49:00 -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-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.1
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-53438-4-rzoppHzbzm@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-53438-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-53438-4@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: 2012-05/txt/msg02483.txt.bz2

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.