On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Thomas Schwinge
<tho...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 19:46:17 +0200, I wrote:
>> diff -ru fnsvb/20030922-1.c.003t.original fsvb/20030922-1.c.003t.original
>> --- fnsvb/20030922-1.c.003t.original 2012-04-19 16:51:18.322150866 +0200
>> +++ fsvb/20030922-1.c.003t.original 2012-04-19 16:49:18.132088498 +0200
>> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
>> switch ((int) common->code)
>> {
>> case 0:;
>> - if (common->code != 0)
>> + if ((BIT_FIELD_REF <*common, 32, 0> & 255) != 0)
>> {
>> abort ();
>> }
>>
>> That is, for -fno-strict-volatile-bitfields the second instance of
>> »common->code« it is a component_ref, whereas for
>> -fstrict-volatile-bitfields it is a bit_field_ref.
>
> Looking at 20030922-1.c.001t.tu I see this:
>
> @2838 bit_field_ref type: @25
>
> Where are the operands? Is the following patch correct/OK to check in?
Ok.
Thanks,
Richard.
> gcc/
> * tree-dump.c (dequeue_and_dump) <BIT_FIELD_REF>: Dump the three child
> nodes.
>
> Index: tree-dump.c
> ===================================================================
> --- tree-dump.c (revision 186430)
> +++ tree-dump.c (working copy)
> @@ -596,6 +596,7 @@ dequeue_and_dump (dump_info_p di)
> break;
>
> case COMPONENT_REF:
> + case BIT_FIELD_REF:
> dump_child ("op 0", TREE_OPERAND (t, 0));
> dump_child ("op 1", TREE_OPERAND (t, 1));
> dump_child ("op 2", TREE_OPERAND (t, 2));
>
> Now I see:
>
> @2838 bit_field_ref type: @25 op 0: @2847 op 1: @2848
> op 2: @20
>
>
> Grüße,
> Thomas
