[Bug tree-optimization/94086] Missed optimization when converting a bitfield to an integer on x86-64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94086 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- The testcase in comment #0 in GCC11+ GCC can optimize it to just a move followed by a return. Note the optimization only happens on the RTL level even. I have not looked into what allowed this to be optimized yet.
[Bug tree-optimization/94086] Missed optimization when converting a bitfield to an integer on x86-64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94086 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager --- Possibly related to and/or a dup of bug 83784?
[Bug tree-optimization/94086] Missed optimization when converting a bitfield to an integer on x86-64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94086 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2020-03-09 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Confirmed. This is another task for a combined bswap/store-merging where the bswap tracking would need to be extended to cover bits. Also part of the reason for the missed optimization is that on GIMPLE we think 'half' is memory but in reality it is in a register.
[Bug tree-optimization/94086] Missed optimization when converting a bitfield to an integer on x86-64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94086 alex_lop at walla dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||alex_lop at walla dot com --- Comment #1 from alex_lop at walla dot com --- Relevant discussion on stackoverflow: https://stackoverflow.com/q/60580591/5218277
[Bug tree-optimization/94086] Missed optimization when converting a bitfield to an integer on x86-64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94086 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org Severity|normal |enhancement Component|c |tree-optimization
