https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39170
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||in-gcc at baka dot org
--- Comment #22 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39170
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39170
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #20 from Eric Galla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39170
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39170
--- Comment #18 from Florin Iucha ---
Even this version creates a warning:
#include
struct foo
{
unsigned bar: 30;
unsigned fill: 2;
};
struct foo test(uint32_t value)
{
struct foo foo;
foo.bar = (value >> 2) & 0x3fffU;
r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39170
Florin Iucha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||florin.iucha at amd dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39170
Albi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||albrecht.guendel at web dot de
--- Comment #16 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39170
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #15 from Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39170
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39170
--- Comment #13 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2013-01-04
17:53:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Is there any resolution to this issue? We need to move to a more recent
> version
> of gcc, but are still stuck at gcc 4.2.4.
I think the best op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39170
--- Comment #12 from Tom Geocaris 2013-01-04 17:32:22
UTC ---
Is there any resolution to this issue? We need to move to a more recent version
of gcc, but are still stuck at gcc 4.2.4.
I looked at gcc 4.7.2 but behavior is the same and I
--- Comment #11 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-06 12:18 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> However, with so many lines of legacy code out there using bit-filed that have
> been proven to work, it doesn't make sense to revisit/modify them. Would it
> be
> possible for gcc to prov
12 matches
Mail list logo
