https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107338
Kewen Lin <linkw at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin <linkw at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to avieira from comment #3)
> Hi Kewen,
>
> I believe you are right. I was waiting for a powerpc machine in the board
> farm, but I suspect I can reproduce this with an aarch64 BE target and I
> should be able to confirm.
>
> But your reasoning seems valid to me. Because of the widening the shift_n
> becomes 32-shift_n-mask_width, but the start of the bitfield didn't move by
> widening the container, so it is still 16 - shift_n - mask_width bits away
> from the start of the container.
>
> Moving the calculation before the widening seems like the neatest solution
> to me, there's no point in keeping the old type around I think.
>
> Do you want to produce a patch for this, seeing you solved it?
Hi Andre,
Thanks for your reply! Sure, I'll make a formal patch and do further
bootstrap/regtest on x86_64-redhat-linux, aarch64-linux-gnu and
powerpc64{,le}-linux-gnu, and post it once the testing go well.
