On 19.02.2016 20:04, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 06:42:32PM +0000, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>> --- gcc/expr.c.jj 2016-02-12 00:50:55.000000000 +0100
>>> +++ gcc/expr.c 2016-02-19 10:43:59.639162531 +0100
>>> @@ -6643,14 +6643,24 @@ store_field (rtx target, HOST_WIDE_INT b
>>> /* Except for initialization of full bytes from a CONSTRUCTOR, which
>>> we will handle specially below. */
>>> && !(TREE_CODE (exp) == CONSTRUCTOR
>>> - && bitsize % BITS_PER_UNIT == 0))
>>> + && bitsize % BITS_PER_UNIT == 0)
>>> + /* And except for bitwise copying of TREE_ADDRESSABLE types,
>>> + where the FIELD_DECL has the right bitsize, but TREE_TYPE (exp)
>>> + includes some extra padding. */
>>> + && (!TREE_ADDRESSABLE (TREE_TYPE (exp))
>>> + || TREE_CODE (exp) != COMPONENT_REF
>>> + || TREE_CODE (DECL_SIZE (TREE_OPERAND (exp, 1))) != INTEGER_CST
>>> + || (bitsize % BITS_PER_UNIT != 0)
>>> + || (bitpos % BITS_PER_UNIT != 0)
>>> + || (compare_tree_int (DECL_SIZE (TREE_OPERAND (exp, 1)), bitsize)
>>> + != 0)))
>>> /* If we are expanding a MEM_REF of a non-BLKmode non-addressable
>>> decl we must use bitfield operations. */
>>
>> isn't the indentation of the new block wrong?
>
> No, I think it is correct.
>
> Jakub
>
but you are just adding another term to this expression:
!(TREE_CODE (exp) == CONSTRUCTOR
&& bitsize % BITS_PER_UNIT == 0)
so the result should look like
!(TREE_CODE (exp) == CONSTRUCTOR
&& bitsize % BITS_PER_UNIT == 0
&& (!TREE_ADDRESSABLE ...
|| TREE_CODE () ...
...
|| (compare_tree_int ...
!= 0)))
Bernd.
