From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-392564-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 17401 invoked by alias); 22 May 2012 12:39:39 -0000
Received: (qmail 17349 invoked by uid 22791); 22 May 2012 12:39:38 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED
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; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:39:25 +0000
From: "rguenth 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: Tue, 22 May 2012 12:41:00 -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: rguenth 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: Status AssignedTo
Message-ID: <bug-53438-4-zEsvQ8A8VC@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/msg02182.txt.bz2

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?