https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804
--- Comment #20 from Oleg Endo <olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #17)
> Presumably the bit-field issue is RX defaulting to MS bit-field layout
> (rx_is_ms_bitfield_layout suggests making the structure itself packed
> should help).
Yep, the following also fixes the issue.
Index: libgcc/fp-bit.h
===================================================================
--- libgcc/fp-bit.h (revision 251045)
+++ libgcc/fp-bit.h (working copy)
@@ -355,7 +355,7 @@
#endif
#ifdef FLOAT_BIT_ORDER_MISMATCH
- struct
+ struct __attribute__((__packed__))
{
fractype fraction:FRACBITS __attribute__ ((packed));
unsigned int exp:EXPBITS __attribute__ ((packed));
@@ -365,7 +365,7 @@
#endif
#ifdef _DEBUG_BITFLOAT
- struct
+ struct __attribute__((__packed__))
{
unsigned int sign:1 __attribute__ ((packed));
unsigned int exp:EXPBITS __attribute__ ((packed));
@@ -373,7 +373,7 @@
}
bits_big_endian;
- struct
+ struct __attribute__((__packed__))
{
fractype fraction:FRACBITS __attribute__ ((packed));
unsigned int exp:EXPBITS __attribute__ ((packed));
But what's the point of having the bit-field code for little endian, while
there is already shift-and-mask code for big endian?
