From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 5BB59385BF81; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 05:09:10 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5BB59385BF81 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1587100150; bh=DcmEZV0ORmUN+NqfkXBsRx0hSlEJZlsg7io/LqcmkYw=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=WF2gIXG+XHX3fQ2BHptexdVxqCQLwJ5MeFsXLgYncOyRNQEAH2S2yQ1JOCi+pGwiu Hjpod7KzSThjRRC5Q5Xh5lortGas/HwV3fixNQ775nGTqsfbH5NCdejpUHlVyY2e6I 50poDeWDo2xFE26sMdDra5rD3EkKK2qQj4WmknlA= From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/94631] Wrong codegen for arithmetic on bitfields Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 05:09:10 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status resolution Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 05:09:10 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94631 Andrew Pinski changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- >I don't believe there's any language in the standard supporting what GCC i= s doing here. Wrong, see C DR 120 where it talks about this specific thing. See https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2017-10/msg00192.html for on why GCC = is correct (and even why LLVM is correct too). Even GCC's C++ front-end is differs from GCC's C front-end here too.=