--- Comment #21 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-23 15:59
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-06-23 15:42 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] cannot take address of
bit field
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, malitzke at metronets dot com wrote:
> Question is it the policy of the gcc community to render all 32-bit machines
> obsolete for la
--- Comment #19 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-23 15:39 ---
Thank you Mr Hubicka for solving this. I had earlier used your patch from
comment 16 but i had to apply it by hand as my patch-2.5.9 (Larry Wall) would
take that published patch even after html2text; changing --- gim
--- Comment #18 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-23 11:58
---
Subject: Bug 31541
Author: hubicka
Date: Sat Jun 23 11:58:18 2007
New Revision: 125971
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=125971
Log:
PR middle-end/31541
* gimplify.c (mark_add
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-23 08:56
---
The patch looks reasonable and is ok if you add the testcase from comment #2
and
it bootstraps®tests. Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31541
--- Comment #16 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2007-06-22 23:59 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] cannot take address of bit field
>
> Yes. It looks like a frontend bug if the tree was not marked addressable
> before gimplification but would need to after.
This does not seem to be so ea
--- Comment #15 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-22 12:51 ---
> > After you solve that there is that little matter of udivdi3.
> udivdi3?
In comment 7 somebody (dcb) remarked about PR31654 (marked duplicate to this
bug) was impeding kernel compilation. In comment 10 it was rei
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-06-22 09:45 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] cannot take address of
bit field
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> --- Comment #12 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2007-06-22 09:35 ---
> Subject: Re: [4.3 Regressi
--- Comment #13 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2007-06-22 09:36 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] cannot take address of bit field
> After you solve that there is that little matter of udivdi3.
udivdi3?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31541
--- Comment #12 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2007-06-22 09:35 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] cannot take address of bit field
Hi,
I've experimented with this a bit - the problem is that the error is
produced during gimplification: gimplifier translates the expression
into the addr_exp
--- Comment #11 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-21 21:13 ---
After you solve that there is that little matter of udivdi3.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31541
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de 2007-06-21 14:52 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] cannot take address of
bit field
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #9 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2007-06-21 14:39 ---
> Subject: Re: [4.3 Reg
--- Comment #9 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2007-06-21 14:39 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] cannot take address of bit field
>
>
> --- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-21 11:19
> ---
> Ping?
I tought the bug is long fixed by moving the folding from f
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-21 11:19 ---
Ping?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #7 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2007-06-12 16:05 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I am finally getting around to testing the patch (been busy with a release of
> our own toolchain last week).
I can confirm that this bug still exists in gcc snapshot
20070608.
Is it significa
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-22 09:10 ---
*** Bug 31654 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-21 23:33 ---
I am finally getting around to testing the patch (been busy with a release of
our own toolchain last week).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31541
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-15 01:36 ---
And the reason is:
/* See if we can use an ordinary integer mode for a bit-field.
Conditions are: a fixed size that is correct for another mode
and occupying a complete byte or byt
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-15 01:30 ---
DECL_BIT_FIELD is false for this decl but bit_field_type is true.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31541
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-11 21:43 ---
Reduced testcase:
typedef unsigned char Uchar;
struct scsi_mode_header {
unsigned char sense_data_len : 8;
};
int f(void)
{
struct scsi_mode_header md;
return *(Uchar*)&md;
}
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org c
20 matches
Mail list logo
