https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63244
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #21 from Cary Couta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63244
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63244
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot com
--- Comment #19 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63244
--- Comment #18 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #17)
> (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #16)
> > Hmm, the 5.0 issue was fixed by r217214. Maybe the fix should be
> > backported to 4.9?
>
> The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63244
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #16)
> Hmm, the 5.0 issue was fixed by r217214. Maybe the fix should be
> backported to 4.9?
The 5.0 issue was new in 5.0. What testcase of the very many in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63244
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
--- Comment #16 from Markus Tri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63244
--- Comment #15 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
On x86_64:
markus@x4 /tmp % cat sock.i
struct sock
{
int sk_userlocks : 4;
} a;
const struct sock b;
void
fn1 ()
{
a.sk_userlocks = b.sk_userlocks & 1;
}
markus@x4 /tmp % gcc -O2 -c sock.i
gcc: i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63244
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priori
