[Bug target/70566] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Bad ARM code generated for evaluating unsigned int bitfield value

2016-08-03 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70566 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.9.5 |4.9.4

[Bug target/70566] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Bad ARM code generated for evaluating unsigned int bitfield value

2016-04-13 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70566 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug target/70566] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Bad ARM code generated for evaluating unsigned int bitfield value

2016-04-08 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70566 --- Comment #10 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: ktkachov Date: Fri Apr 8 09:39:44 2016 New Revision: 234825 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234825&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [ARM] PR target/70566 Check that condition register is de

[Bug target/70566] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Bad ARM code generated for evaluating unsigned int bitfield value

2016-04-07 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70566 --- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Patch posted at: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg00351.html

[Bug target/70566] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Bad ARM code generated for evaluating unsigned int bitfield value

2016-04-07 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70566 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug target/70566] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Bad ARM code generated for evaluating unsigned int bitfield value

2016-04-07 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70566 --- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #7) > (In reply to ktkachov from comment #6) > > Ah, on second glance the peephole looks correct in itself, but the second > > branch following the bmi

[Bug target/70566] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Bad ARM code generated for evaluating unsigned int bitfield value

2016-04-07 Thread rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70566 --- Comment #7 from Richard Earnshaw --- (In reply to ktkachov from comment #6) > Ah, on second glance the peephole looks correct in itself, but the second > branch following the bmi uses an incorrect condition code. > So we have: > tst

[Bug target/70566] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Bad ARM code generated for evaluating unsigned int bitfield value

2016-04-07 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70566 --- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Ah, on second glance the peephole looks correct in itself, but the second branch following the bmi uses an incorrect condition code. So we have: tst r3, #2 bne .L3

[Bug target/70566] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Bad ARM code generated for evaluating unsigned int bitfield value

2016-04-07 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70566 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC

[Bug target/70566] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Bad ARM code generated for evaluating unsigned int bitfield value

2016-04-07 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70566 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ktkachov at gcc dot

[Bug target/70566] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Bad ARM code generated for evaluating unsigned int bitfield value

2016-04-07 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70566 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target||arm Status|UNCO