On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 01:57:33PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote: > Richard Guenther <rguent...@suse.de> writes: > > >> Anyway, the patch I posted previously would risk re-introducing PR > >> 50386 and PR 50326, even though they are very unlikely with just > >> bit-fields. So my current working version is the following, but it > >> causes failure of libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx execution test so I'm > >> not actually proposing it yet (sigh). > > > > I would not worry about mudflap tests. The patch looks good to my > > eyes. > > Are you sure the failure is new? At least for 64-bit at -O, > libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx already fails right now (cf. PR > libmudflap/49843). >
Well, my patch makes it fail on all other optimization levels too (the supposedly no-optimization variant is actually compiled with -O2). But thanks for pointing me towards the bug, I'll use it as an excuse to commit the patch nevertheless (mainly because I really cannot see anything wrong going on there, at least with respect to SRA and this change). Thanks, Martin
