Re: [PATCH] Bug fix in store_bit_field_1 for big endian targets (issue 51893)

2012-03-28 Thread Richard Guenther 
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, Eric Botcazou wrote:

  Changelog:
  * expmed.c (store_bit_field_1): Fix wordnum value for big endian targets
 
 The author line was missing so I put:
 
 2012-03-27  Aurelien Buhrig  aurelien.buhrig@gmail.com
 
   PR middle-end/51893
   * expmed.c (store_bit_field_1): Fix wordnum value for big-endian
   targets.
 
  Will this fix be backported to 4.6 branch for next release?
 
 The policy is to put only fixes for regressions on release branches, and this 
 is obviously not a regression.  I think we might want to put it on the 4.7 
 branch though, because it's early in the release cycle and we fixed a twin 
 bug 
 on that branch (PR middle-end/50325).  But it's up to the RMs, now CCed.

Yes, it's ok for the 4.7 branch.

Richard.

Re: [PATCH] Bug fix in store_bit_field_1 for big endian targets (issue 51893)

2012-03-27 Thread Eric Botcazou 
 Changelog:
 * expmed.c (store_bit_field_1): Fix wordnum value for big endian targets

The author line was missing so I put:

2012-03-27  Aurelien Buhrig  aurelien.buhrig@gmail.com

PR middle-end/51893
* expmed.c (store_bit_field_1): Fix wordnum value for big-endian
targets.

 Will this fix be backported to 4.6 branch for next release?

The policy is to put only fixes for regressions on release branches, and this 
is obviously not a regression.  I think we might want to put it on the 4.7 
branch though, because it's early in the release cycle and we fixed a twin bug 
on that branch (PR middle-end/50325).  But it's up to the RMs, now CCed.

-- 
Eric Botcazou

Re: [PATCH] Bug fix in store_bit_field_1 for big endian targets (issue 51893)

2012-03-26 Thread Aurelien Buhrig 

 Passes bootstrap and regression test powerpc64-linux.
 
 Thanks a lot, Alan!
 
 So, Aurelien, you only need to adjust the formatting of the patch and post a 
 ChangeLog entry along with it.  TIA.
 

Thanks Alan!
Bootstrap and regression test for m68k-elf ok, but I have trouble cross
compiling trunk for powerpc64-linux target...

Changelog:
* expmed.c (store_bit_field_1): Fix wordnum value for big endian targets

Will this fix be backported to 4.6 branch for next release?

Aurélien


Index: gcc/expmed.c
===
--- gcc/expmed.c(revision 185732)
+++ gcc/expmed.c(working copy)
@@ -550,7 +550,10 @@
{
  /* If I is 0, use the low-order word in both field and target;
 if I is 1, use the next to lowest word; and so on.  */
- unsigned int wordnum = (backwards ? nwords - i - 1 : i);
+ unsigned int wordnum = (backwards
+ ? GET_MODE_SIZE (fieldmode) / UNITS_PER_WORD
+ - i - 1
+ : i);
  unsigned int bit_offset = (backwards
 ? MAX ((int) bitsize - ((int) i + 1)
* BITS_PER_WORD,

Re: [PATCH] Bug fix in store_bit_field_1 for big endian targets (issue 51893)

2012-03-24 Thread Eric Botcazou 
 Passes bootstrap and regression test powerpc64-linux.

Thanks a lot, Alan!

So, Aurelien, you only need to adjust the formatting of the patch and post a 
ChangeLog entry along with it.  TIA.

-- 
Eric Botcazou

Re: [PATCH] Bug fix in store_bit_field_1 for big endian targets (issue 51893)

2012-03-22 Thread Alan Modra 
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:53:07PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
  This patch (for 4.6) fixes a wrong subword index computation in
  store_bit_field_1 for big endian targets when value is at least 4 times
  bigger than a word (DI REG value with HI words).
 
  It fixes a regression on gcc.c-torture/execute/bitfld-3.c for my current
  backend port.
 
  http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51893
 
  OK to commit?
 
 It is OK for mainline on principle but there is no ChangeLog entry and the 
 patch doesn't follow the GNU Coding Style: TABs instead of spaces, spaces 
 before parentheses, etc.  See the equivalent code in extract_bit_field_1.
 Moreover you need to properly test it on a mainstream big-endian platform.

Passes bootstrap and regression test powerpc64-linux.

-- 
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM

[PATCH] Bug fix in store_bit_field_1 for big endian targets (issue 51893)

2012-03-21 Thread Aurelien Buhrig 
Hi,

This patch (for 4.6) fixes a wrong subword index computation in
store_bit_field_1 for big endian targets when value is at least 4 times
bigger than a word (DI REG value with HI words).

It fixes a regression on gcc.c-torture/execute/bitfld-3.c for my current
backend port.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51893

OK to commit?

Aurélien
--- gcc-4.6.1.orig/gcc/expmed.c 2011-05-22 21:02:59.0 +0200
+++ src/gcc/expmed.c2012-01-19 09:32:04.0 +0100
@@ -589,7 +589,10 @@
{
  /* If I is 0, use the low-order word in both field and target;
 if I is 1, use the next to lowest word; and so on.  */
- unsigned int wordnum = (backwards ? nwords - i - 1 : i);
+ unsigned int wordnum = (backwards
+  ? GET_MODE_SIZE(fieldmode)/UNITS_PER_WORD
+- i - 1 
+  : i);
  unsigned int bit_offset = (backwards
 ? MAX ((int) bitsize - ((int) i + 1)
* BITS_PER_WORD,

Re: [PATCH] Bug fix in store_bit_field_1 for big endian targets (issue 51893)

2012-03-21 Thread Eric Botcazou 
 This patch (for 4.6) fixes a wrong subword index computation in
 store_bit_field_1 for big endian targets when value is at least 4 times
 bigger than a word (DI REG value with HI words).

 It fixes a regression on gcc.c-torture/execute/bitfld-3.c for my current
 backend port.

 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51893

 OK to commit?

It is OK for mainline on principle but there is no ChangeLog entry and the 
patch doesn't follow the GNU Coding Style: TABs instead of spaces, spaces 
before parentheses, etc.  See the equivalent code in extract_bit_field_1.
Moreover you need to properly test it on a mainstream big-endian platform.

See http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html for a more complete reference.

-- 
Eric Botcazou