On Thu, 15 Aug 2019, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, 15 Aug 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > > > > > > We can't subset an SSA_NAME. I have really no idea what this intended > > > to do... > > > > > > > Nice, so would you do a patch to change that to a > > gcc_checking_assert (TREE_CODE (tem) != SSA_NAME) ? > > maybe with a small explanation? > > I'll try.
So actually we can via BIT_FIELD_REF<_1, ...> and that _1 can end up being expanded in memory. See r233656 which brought this in. Richard.
