https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||robotux at celest dot fr
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Right makes sense. So I tried your suggestion (guard the first if with
> !reverse but not the second) and it didn't work. Problem as you suggested is
> adjust_bit_field_mem_for_reg which refuses to do an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #13)
> > Forgive my naive question as I'm not too familiar with that part of the
> > compiler: why should the get_best_mem_extraction_insn be guarded with
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Forgive my naive question as I'm not too familiar with that part of the
> compiler: why should the get_best_mem_extraction_insn be guarded with
> reverse? I thought I'd just ad an if (reverse) if it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #11)
> > Therefore unaligned access are handled by extract_bit_field. This in turns
> > call extract_bit_field_1 and later extract_integral_bit_field where
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #8)
> (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #6)
> > > Happens at expand time. Diving in.
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #7)
> (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #6)
> > Happens at expand time. Diving in.
>
> There's a giant if in expand_expr_real_1 with the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Happens at expand time. Diving in.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
---
14 matches
Mail list logo