https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
--- Comment #22 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by David Malcolm
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:21b470a9c976f3db7cce6d58a07c58a58676f93c
commit r11-8681-g21b470a9c976f3db7cce6d58a07c58a58676f93c
Author: David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
--- Comment #21 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by David Malcolm
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fa92642b26ee236098ed51752feecc7cf5711f8c
commit r11-8678-gfa92642b26ee236098ed51752feecc7cf5711f8c
Author: David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
--- Comment #20 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus ---
The mentioned failing test cases are fixed on IBM Z, now. Thanks for your help!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ec3fafa9ec7d16b9d89076efd3bac1d1af0502b8
commit r12-1491-gec3fafa9ec7d16b9d89076efd3bac1d1af0502b8
Author: David Malcolm
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
--- Comment #18 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus from comment #17)
> The new testcases introduced by commit d3b1ef7a83c fail on IBM Z as well as
> some older data-model tests:
Sorry about this; it sounds similar to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stefansf at linux dot ibm.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] |[11 Regression]
|gcc.d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:07b27384de56ce2f6a93007d018743ef9d5c8cc4
commit r11-8143-g07b27384de56ce2f6a93007d018743ef9d5c8cc4
Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||xfail
--- Comment #12 from Hans-Pet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm ---
I experimented with fixing this properly so that it works for all targets, but
the fix involves adding a new region subclass to handle bitfields, and so feels
far too risky for GCC 11.
Hence this should be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
--- Comment #10 from David Malcolm -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> xfail/pass depending on sizeof (int) might be possible but as said it might
> be that cris doesn't have sizeof (int) == 1
You meant something else here tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||cris-elf
--- Comment #8 from Richard Bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #6)
> Answering my own question:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Types.html
> [...]
Nothing here for a month+. Any chance of this getting progress in (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Answering my own question:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Types.html
INTEGER_TYPE
Used to represent the various integral types, including char, short, int,
long, and long long. This code is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Possibly a dumb question, but how am I meant to get at the size in bits of a
bitfield? TYPE_SIZE appears to be expressed in bytes, rather than bits (or
maybe I messed up when debugging?)
On a 1-bit unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
I guess cris-elf simply has different type sizes / bitfield layout here. The
dumps hint at sizeof (ubits) == 1 for cris. So you should eventually get
the same on x86_64 when you use unsigned char : ...; bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #2)
> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu has:
I messed up the copy and paste here; the x86_64 gimple actually reads:
bits.b0 = 1;
_1 = BIT_FIELD_REF ;
_2 = _1 & 1;
_3 = _2 !
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Failing test is in test_45 at:
__analyzer_eval (bits.b0 == 1); /* { dg-warning "TRUE" "desired" { xfail
*-*-* } } */
/* { dg-warning "UNKNOWN" "status quo" { target *-*-* } .-1 } */
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-23
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
22 matches
Mail list logo
