https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110042
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110042
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:df0853d72d38247aed577a4511450c91794f2f06
commit r14-1507-gdf0853d72d38247aed577a4511450c91794f2f06
Author: Andrew Pinski
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110042
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 55219
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55219=edit
untested patch
I am going to test this on both x86_64 and aarch64 tonight.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110042
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-05-30
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110042
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Because of the subreg.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110042
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
bb_valid_for_noce_process_p returns false for the zero_extract case ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110042
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Here is a bitfield testcase which shows this was a latent issue:
```
struct f
{
unsigned t:3;
unsigned t1:4;
};
unsigned f2(struct f);
unsigned
f1(int t, struct f y)
{
int tt = 0;
if(t)
tt =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110042
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110042
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I am still looking into this. This is definitely a latent bug and maybe even
can be reproduced some bitfield extractions too.
