On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 08:49, Richard Guenther <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Diego Novillo wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 04:56, Richard Guenther <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: >> >> >> @@ -518,7 +518,8 @@ pack_ts_type_value_fields (struct bitpack_d *bp, tree >> >> expr) >> >> bp_pack_value (bp, TYPE_USER_ALIGN (expr), 1); >> >> bp_pack_value (bp, TYPE_READONLY (expr), 1); >> >> bp_pack_value (bp, TYPE_ALIGN (expr), HOST_BITS_PER_INT); >> >> - bp_pack_value (bp, TYPE_ALIAS_SET (expr) == 0 ? 0 : -1, >> >> HOST_BITS_PER_INT); >> >> + bp_pack_value (bp, TYPE_ALIAS_SET (expr) == 0 ? 0 : -1, >> >> + BITS_PER_BITPACK_WORD); >> > >> > As we only want to stream alias-set zeros just change it to a single bit, >> > like >> > >> > bp_pack_value (bp, TYPE_ALIAS_SET (expr) == 0, 1); >> > >> > and on the reader side restore either a zero or -1. >> >> Ah, yes. Much better. >> >> > As for the -1 case, it's simply broken use of the interface. >> >> Which would've been caught by the assertion. How about this, we keep >> the asserts with #ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING. This would've saved me some >> ugly debugging. > > I think we should rather add the masking. The assert would only > trigger for particular values, not for bogus use of the interface > (you get sign-extension for signed arguments).
OK, that works too. I'll prepare a patch. Diego.
