subject:"\[Bug tree\-optimization\/85301\] bitfield check causes maybe\-uninitialized warning"

[Bug tree-optimization/85301] bitfield check causes maybe-uninitialized warning

2022-11-28 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85301 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |13.0

[Bug tree-optimization/85301] bitfield check causes maybe-uninitialized warning

2022-11-19 Thread law at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85301 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/85301] bitfield check causes maybe-uninitialized warning

2021-04-05 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85301 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2018-04-09 00:00:00 |2021-4-5 Known to fail|

[Bug tree-optimization/85301] bitfield check causes maybe-uninitialized warning

2018-04-09 Thread law at redhat dot com

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85301 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #7 fr

[Bug tree-optimization/85301] bitfield check causes maybe-uninitialized warning

2018-04-09 Thread arnd at linaro dot org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85301 --- Comment #6 from Arnd Bergmann --- I found that older versions (gcc-5 and before) did not warn when the type gets changed to bitfield of '_Bool' rather than 'unsigned int'. It seems that this was only because they tested each bit separately in

[Bug tree-optimization/85301] bitfield check causes maybe-uninitialized warning

2018-04-09 Thread law at redhat dot com

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85301 --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law --- FWIW, there's another similar bug where DOM doesn't do a particularly good job at tracking the state of objects implied the results of logical operations which in turn causes missed optimizations. I've poke

[Bug tree-optimization/85301] bitfield check causes maybe-uninitialized warning

2018-04-09 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85301 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Note, r142464 still doesn't warn, r142514 does, probably r142484 enabled the (premature) BIT_FIELD_REF comparison optimization in fold-const.c.