https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86968
Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Therefore unaligned access are handled by extract_bit_field. This in turns
> call extract_bit_field_1 and later extract_integral_bit_field where things
> are different between little endian and big endian. For little endian, it
> goes in the following if block:
>
> /* If OP0 is a memory, try copying it to a register and seeing if a
> cheap register alternative is available. */
> if (MEM_P (op0) & !reverse)
>
> For big endian it continues and calls extract_fixed_bit_field. I'm wondering
> if an extra call to flip_storage_order when reverse is true would solve the
> issue. Need to understand better whe is it safe to call flip_storage_order.
Where do you want to add a call to flip_storage_order exactly? The correct
thing to do would be to move the !reverse test from the top-level if to the
first inner if (in order to bypass only the extv business) and see what happens
next (and be prepared for adjusting adjust_bit_field_mem_for_reg to reverse
SSO).
