https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Feb 4 08:22:45 2015
New Revision: 220390
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220390&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-04 Thomas Preud'homme
gcc/
PR middle-end/6210
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Ok, I have a local fix. The existing testcase didn't catch it because the
precision of the bitfield is not a multiple of CHAR_BITS.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
--- Comment #10 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Jiong Wang from comment #8)
> looks like this fix is too conservative. it will disable const fold for
> bit-field completely. for bitfld-6/little-endian, previously, we can
> generated
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
--- Comment #8 from Jiong Wang ---
looks like this fix is too conservative. it will disable const fold for
bit-field completely. for bitfld-6/little-endian, previously, we can generated
main:
mov w0, 0
ret
while after this p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
--- Comment #5 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Thu Aug 14 06:16:56 2014
New Revision: 213941
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213941&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-14 Thomas Preud'homme
Backport from mainli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
--- Comment #4 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Wed Aug 13 09:37:41 2014
New Revision: 213899
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213899&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-13 Thomas Preud'homme
Backport from mainli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
--- Comment #3 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Tue Aug 12 02:36:37 2014
New Revision: 213846
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213846&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-12 Thomas Preud'homme
gcc/
PR middle-e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
--- Comment #2 from thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I forgot to mention the flag to use: -O1 and whatever flag is necessary to
select a big endian target (for instance -mbig-endian if the target is arm
little endian by default).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62103
thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed
14 matches
Mail list logo
