runtime option.
-Original Message-
From: rearnsha at arm dot com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 11 September 2006 13:15
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Bug c/28568] compiler generates incorrect ARM instructions
when using long bitfields
--- Comment #6 from rearnsha at arm dot com
--- Comment #6 from rearnsha at arm dot com 2006-09-11 12:14 ---
Subject: Re: compiler generates incorrect ARM instructions
when using long bitfields
On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 13:56, jason dot morgan at vpnsolutions dot uk dot
com wrote:
> Where do I obtain EABI and what effect wi
--- Comment #5 from jason dot morgan at vpnsolutions dot uk dot com
2006-08-02 12:56 ---
The problem is that I am porting code from the IAR systems compiler that makes
large use of bitfields to access registers. Obviously it handles bitfields
correctly. And I don't particularly want to
--- Comment #4 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-02 12:35
---
> What is the status of PR23624. I see there was a checkin, what do I have to
> do to make use of the change?
You have to convert your code/system to use the EABI version of GCC; or you
have to modify your sour
--- Comment #3 from jason dot morgan at vpnsolutions dot uk dot com
2006-08-02 11:30 ---
Indeed it is.
I didn't mean to post this and was still researching the problem when I
accidently posted it. I found PR23623 shortly afterwards.
What is the status of PR23624. I see there was a
--- Comment #2 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-08-02 10:58 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> #define __REG32 volatile unsigend long
>
> typedef struct
> {
> __REG32 Bit0 :1;
> __REG32 Bit1 :1;
> ...etc...
> __REG32 Bit31 :1;
> }__Bitfield;
>
> #define ADDRESS
>
> #define REG (*(
--- Comment #1 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-02 10:38
---
Please provide a fully compilable testcase that demonstrates the bug.
--
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
