Hi,
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > Even without this bug gcc usage of bitfield instruction has become a
> > little insane lately, e.g. 2.95/3.4 produce this code:
> >
> > retmeK:
> > link.w %a6,#0
> > move.l 8(%a6),%d0
> > unlk %a6
> > rts
>
> FWI
Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is taken from execute/20040709-1.c:
>
> struct K { unsigned int k : 6, l : 1, j : 10, i : 15; };
> struct K retmeK (struct K x)
> {
> return x;
> }
>
> This produces the following code:
>
> retmeK:
> link.w %fp,#0
> move.l %d3,-(%sp
Hi,
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, I wrote:
> simply copying values like this it's overkill, what makes this worse is
> that the rtl optimizers can often do as much with this (and in combination
^ not
> with subreg it's not getting better...)
This should make more sens
Hi,
Something broke the bitfield handling recently and before I delve deeper
into it, I'm hoping someone admits guilt. :)
This is taken from execute/20040709-1.c:
struct K { unsigned int k : 6, l : 1, j : 10, i : 15; };
struct K retmeK (struct K x)
{
return x;
}
This produces the following c
