Hi! How do we move this issue forward?
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:46:34 +0100, Bernd Schmidt <ber...@codesourcery.com>
wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 05:35 PM, Mitchell, Mark wrote:
> >>> So, I still think this patch is the best way to go forward, and it
> >> does
> >>> fix incorrect code generation. Would appreciate an OK.
> >>
> >> Ping.
> >
> > If you don't hear any objections within a week, please proceed.
>
> That was committed a while ago. The part in stor-layout.c that stops us
> from promoting bitfields to normal fields apparently caused some
> testsuite regressions in sh tests, where some optimization dump scans
> show that we can't perform the optimizations if there are BIT_FIELD_REFs
> rather than a normal member access.
>
> The testcases use things like
> enum something field:8;
> and I think applying strict-volatile-bitfields to enums is probably
> meaningless. Should we adjust semantics so that the compiler is free to
> optimize enum bitfields? The patch would look something like the below.
> Thomas has tested this on arm and sh with our internal tree.
>
>
> Bernd
>
>
> Index: gcc/stor-layout.c
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/stor-layout.c (revision 355696)
> +++ gcc/stor-layout.c (working copy)
> @@ -665,8 +665,7 @@
> may make a volatile object later. */
> if (TYPE_SIZE (type) != 0
> && TREE_CODE (TYPE_SIZE (type)) == INTEGER_CST
> - && GET_MODE_CLASS (TYPE_MODE (type)) == MODE_INT
> - && flag_strict_volatile_bitfields <= 0)
> + && GET_MODE_CLASS (TYPE_MODE (type)) == MODE_INT)
> {
> enum machine_mode xmode
> = mode_for_size_tree (DECL_SIZE (decl), MODE_INT, 1);
> @@ -674,7 +673,12 @@
>
> if (xmode != BLKmode
> && !(xalign > BITS_PER_UNIT && DECL_PACKED (decl))
> - && (known_align == 0 || known_align >= xalign))
> + && (known_align == 0 || known_align >= xalign)
> + && (flag_strict_volatile_bitfields <= 0
> + /* Same size makes strict volatile bitfields
> meaningless. */
> + || GET_MODE_SIZE (xmode) == GET_MODE_SIZE
> (TYPE_MODE (type))
> + /* Strict volatile bitfields shouldn't apply to
> enums. */
> + || TREE_CODE (type) == ENUMERAL_TYPE))
> {
> DECL_ALIGN (decl) = MAX (xalign, DECL_ALIGN (decl));
> DECL_MODE (decl) = xmode;
>
Grüße,
Thomas
pgpB3reRBrGcX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
