[Bug tree-optimization/45144] SRA optimization issue of bit-field

[steven at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45144

Steven Bosscher  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher  ---
With/without -fno-tree-sra gives same code since GCC 5.4.1.

[Bug tree-optimization/45144] SRA optimization issue of bit-field

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45144

Richard Guenther  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot   |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
   |gnu.org |

--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther  2011-05-06 
13:33:58 UTC ---
Fixed with my current lowering patch which gets rid of the struct A and
union TMP vars completely.

[Bug tree-optimization/45144] SRA optimization issue of bit-field

[jiez at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #4 from jiez at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-08-05 03:06 ---
Subject: Bug 45144

Author: jiez
Date: Thu Aug  5 03:05:35 2010
New Revision: 162897

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162897
Log:
PR tree-optimization/45144
* tree-sra.c (type_consists_of_records_p): Return false
if the record contains bit-field.

testsuite/
PR tree-optimization/45144
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr45144.c: New test.

Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr45144.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/tree-sra.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45144

[Bug tree-optimization/45144] SRA optimization issue of bit-field

[ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Keywords||missed-optimization
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-08-02 07:54:22
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45144

[Bug tree-optimization/45144] SRA optimization issue of bit-field

[jiez at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #3 from jiez at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-08-02 04:34 ---
Aggregates Copy Propagation should be able to fix this, too.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45144

[Bug tree-optimization/45144] SRA optimization issue of bit-field

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-31 09:25 ---
I agree.  SRA might be even the place to do this lowering in.  For ease of
use re-surrecting BIT_FIELD_EXPR from the mem-ref branch might turn out
useful for this.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45144

[Bug tree-optimization/45144] SRA optimization issue of bit-field

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-30 17:09 ---
The solution IMNSHO is to detect adjacent bitfield operations that can be
handled together and lower bitfield ops still at the tree level, though soon
before expansion, rather than disabling SRA for bitfields.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45144