https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #27 from Wilco <wilco at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #22) > > Is it really pure RTL, therefore not used in tree? So the above patch using > > BITS_BIG_ENDIAN for tree stuff would be incorrect to use it? > > I wouldn't say incorrect, just inappropriate and unnecessary. And, yes, it > isn't used at the tree level and should stay so IMO. BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN alone > already implicitly enforces a numbering on bits. I mean incorrect as in the optimization would still trigger and give incorrect results if BITS_BIG_ENDIAN == BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN (given that BITS_BIG_ENDIAN has no bearing on the bitfield offsets used on tree level).
