[Bug middle-end/28160] Bogus size of array 'foo' is too large error with -mms-bitfields
--- Comment #6 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 06:59 --- Subject: Bug 28160 Author: kkojima Date: Sat Jul 15 06:58:57 2006 New Revision: 115464 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=115464 Log: PR middle-end/28160 * stor-layout.c (place_field): Take the bit field with an excessive size into account in the ms-bitfiled case. PR middle-end/28161 * stor-layout.c (place_field): Use DECL_BIT_FIELD_TYPE of the previous bit field. Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/stor-layout.c -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28160
[Bug middle-end/28160] Bogus size of array 'foo' is too large error with -mms-bitfields
--- Comment #7 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-15 23:12 --- Fixed. -- kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28160
[Bug middle-end/28160] Bogus size of array 'foo' is too large error with -mms-bitfields
--- Comment #5 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-06-29 21:45 --- Subject: Bug number PR middle-end/28160 A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker. The mailing list url for the patch is http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-06/msg01472.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28160
[Bug middle-end/28160] Bogus size of array 'foo' is too large error with -mms-bitfields
--- Comment #1 from seongbae dot park at gmail dot com 2006-06-26 20:46 --- I belive this is a bug in stor-layout.c:place_field() around line 10503 bitpos is calculated as bit_offset of rli-prev_field + type size. However, the prev_field is not really the immediately previous field but the first field of the consecutive same-sized fields. Hence, in this case: struct S { long long d:23; int e:32; int f:32; } a; rli-prev_field is d when field is f. The correct fix should calculate the bitpos as rli-bitpos + type size. -- seongbae dot park at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||seongbae dot park at gmail ||dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28160
[Bug middle-end/28160] Bogus size of array 'foo' is too large error with -mms-bitfields
--- Comment #2 from seongbae dot park at gmail dot com 2006-06-26 20:47 --- Oops. Mu previous comment is misplaced. It should have been on PR28161. Please ignore it. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28160
[Bug middle-end/28160] Bogus size of array 'foo' is too large error with -mms-bitfields
--- Comment #3 from seongbae dot park at gmail dot com 2006-06-26 21:08 --- The immediate cause of the problem is in stor-layout.c:place_field(): 1118 if (DECL_SIZE (field) != NULL 1119host_integerp (TYPE_SIZE (TREE_TYPE (field)), 0) 1120host_integerp (DECL_SIZE (field), 0)) 1121 rli-remaining_in_alignment 1122 = tree_low_cst (TYPE_SIZE (TREE_TYPE(field)), 1) 1123 - tree_low_cst (DECL_SIZE (field), 1); For the field d, remiaining_in_alignment becomes negative after line 1121-1123 - because the DECL_SIZE is larger than TYPE_SIZE for d. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28160
[Bug middle-end/28160] Bogus size of array 'foo' is too large error with -mms-bitfields
--- Comment #4 from kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-26 22:42 --- Thanks for your comment. Perhaps one solution would be to handle such bit fields with excessive sizes as the case of no remaining bits in alignment. I'm testing the appended patch which changes lines you've pointed out. --- ORIG/trunk/gcc/stor-layout.c2006-06-13 09:06:36.0 +0900 +++ LOCAL/trunk/gcc/stor-layout.c 2006-06-26 16:43:12.0 +0900 @@ -1047,17 +1047,20 @@ place_field (record_layout_info rli, tre if (rli-remaining_in_alignment bitsize) { + HOST_WIDE_INT typesize = tree_low_cst (TYPE_SIZE (type), 1); + /* out of bits; bump up to next 'word'. */ - rli-offset = DECL_FIELD_OFFSET (rli-prev_field); rli-bitpos - = size_binop (PLUS_EXPR, TYPE_SIZE (type), - DECL_FIELD_BIT_OFFSET (rli-prev_field)); + = size_binop (PLUS_EXPR, rli-bitpos, + bitsize_int (rli-remaining_in_alignment)); rli-prev_field = field; - rli-remaining_in_alignment - = tree_low_cst (TYPE_SIZE (type), 1); + if (typesize bitsize) + rli-remaining_in_alignment = 0; + else + rli-remaining_in_alignment = typesize - bitsize; } - - rli-remaining_in_alignment -= bitsize; + else + rli-remaining_in_alignment -= bitsize; } else { @@ -1119,9 +1121,16 @@ place_field (record_layout_info rli, tre if (DECL_SIZE (field) != NULL host_integerp (TYPE_SIZE (TREE_TYPE (field)), 0) host_integerp (DECL_SIZE (field), 0)) - rli-remaining_in_alignment - = tree_low_cst (TYPE_SIZE (TREE_TYPE(field)), 1) - - tree_low_cst (DECL_SIZE (field), 1); + { + HOST_WIDE_INT bitsize = tree_low_cst (DECL_SIZE (field), 1); + HOST_WIDE_INT typesize + = tree_low_cst (TYPE_SIZE (TREE_TYPE (field)), 1); + + if (typesize bitsize) + rli-remaining_in_alignment = 0; + else + rli-remaining_in_alignment = typesize - bitsize; + } /* Now align (conventionally) for the new type. */ type_align = TYPE_ALIGN (TREE_TYPE (field)); -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28160