https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15826
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15826
--- Comment #18 from Bill Schmidt ---
I agree with Matthew.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15826
Matthew Fortune changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matthew.fortune at imgtec dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15826
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Steven Bosscher from comment #6)
> The tree dump for the original test case now looks like this for me:
>
> ;; Function foo (foo)
>
> foo (p)
> {
> :
> return (unsigned int) ((BIT_FIELD_REF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15826
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
My preference is to see the test properly resolved. :) I don't think you
should just XFAIL the powerpc64le case without understanding why it fails, as
that tends to leave the XFAIL in place forever.
Here is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15826
--- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
Thank your for catching it. I did actually read all the comments. The trouble
is that there are several test cases here and I missed the one in the second
half
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15826
Bill Seurer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at linux dot
vnet.ibm.com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15826
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15826
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15826
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Feb 26 23:24:29 2016
New Revision: 233771
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233771&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/15826 - don't use "if" to extract a single bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15826
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Which boils down to the premature fold-const.c:optimize_bit_field_compare
which creates this BIT_FIELD_REF (fold_truth_andor_1 does similar stupid
stuff).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15826
Bug 15826 depends on bug 15459, which changed state.
Bug 15459 Summary: [meta-bug] there should be a tree combiner like the rtl one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15459
What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15826
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski 2012-
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-30 19:21 ---
On the trunk I have after phiopt1:
;; Function andrew (andrew)
Removing basic block 3
Merging blocks 2 and 4
andrew (struct s * p)
{
_Bool D.1212;
int i;
unsigned int D.1183;
D.1182;
:
D.1182_3 = p_2(D)
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-05 22:01 ---
The tree dump for the original test case now looks like this for me:
;; Function foo (foo)
foo (p)
{
:
return (unsigned int) ((BIT_FIELD_REF <*p, 8, 0> & 1) != 0);
}
;; Function bar (bar)
bar (p)
{
:
return
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-02 14:24 ---
This is interesting, we now get BIT_FIELD_REF.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15826
--
Bug 15826 depends on bug 15618, which changed state.
Bug 15618 Summary: Missed bool optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15618
What|Old Value |New Value
17 matches
Mail list logo
