------- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-04-28 21:35 -------
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] Revision 146831 caused
many test failures
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, sje at cup dot hp dot com wrote:
> ------- Comment #6 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2009-04-28 21:25 -------
> ;; Function foo (foo)
>
> foo ()
> {
> vector float D.2002;
> vector float D.2001;
> vector float D.2000;
> vector float D.1999;
> vector float D.1998;
> vector float D.1997;
> v4sf value.1;
> v4sf value.0;
> <bb 2>:
> value.0_2 = value;
> D.1997_3 = BIT_FIELD_REF <{ 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9 }, 64, 0>;
> D.1998_4 = BIT_FIELD_REF <value.0_2, 64, 0>;
> D.1999_5 = D.1997_3 + D.1998_4;
> D.2000_6 = BIT_FIELD_REF <{ 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9, 1.0e+9 }, 64, 64>;
> D.2001_7 = BIT_FIELD_REF <value.0_2, 64, 64>;
> D.2002_8 = D.2000_6 + D.2001_7;
> value.1_9 = {D.1999_5, D.2002_8};
> value = value.1_9;
> return;
That looks all odd. vector float is supposedly v2sf here. Especially
the definition of value.1_9 looks odd.
I suppose this is our generic vector support at work?
Richard.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39932
