> gcc/
> * stor-layout.c (bit_field_mode_iterator::next_mode): Fix signedness.
This looks fine to me.
--
Eric Botcazou
Richard Sandiford writes:
> Mikael Pettersson writes:
>> John David Anglin writes:
>> > On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> >
>> > >HOST_WIDE_INT start = bitpos_ - (bitpos_ % unit);
>> > >if (bitregion_start_ && start < bitregion_start_)
>> > > break;
>>
Mikael Pettersson writes:
> John David Anglin writes:
> > On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >
> > >HOST_WIDE_INT start = bitpos_ - (bitpos_ % unit);
> > >if (bitregion_start_ && start < bitregion_start_)
> > > break;
> > > - if (bitregion_end_ &&
John David Anglin writes:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
> >HOST_WIDE_INT start = bitpos_ - (bitpos_ % unit);
> >if (bitregion_start_ && start < bitregion_start_)
> >break;
> > - if (bitregion_end_ && start + unit > bitregion_end_ + 1)
> > +
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>HOST_WIDE_INT start = bitpos_ - (bitpos_ % unit);
>if (bitregion_start_ && start < bitregion_start_)
> break;
> - if (bitregion_end_ && start + unit > bitregion_end_ + 1)
> + if (start + unit > bitregion_end_ + 1)
This
Eric Botcazou writes:
>> This patch replaces:
>>
>> /* Stop if the mode is wider than the alignment of the containing
>> object.
>>
>> It is tempting to omit the following line unless STRICT_ALIGNMENT
>> is true. But that is incorrect, since if the bitfield uses part
>>
> This patch replaces:
>
> /* Stop if the mode is wider than the alignment of the containing
>object.
>
>It is tempting to omit the following line unless STRICT_ALIGNMENT
>is true. But that is incorrect, since if the bitfield uses part
>of 3 bytes and we use
This patch replaces:
/* Stop if the mode is wider than the alignment of the containing
object.
It is tempting to omit the following line unless STRICT_ALIGNMENT
is true. But that is incorrect, since if the bitfield uses part
of 3 bytes and we use a 4-byt
