--- Comment #8 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 15:35
---
> Yes, the patch looks like it can't make things worse and so is
> certainly fine (4.4 looks also affected? if not, how was it
> fixed there - maybe that fix should be backported instead)
Yes, 4.4 is very likely
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-04-16 15:32 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] ICE in
bitfield_overlaps_p, at tree-sra.c:2937
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 15:20
>
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 15:20
---
Richard, do you think this kind of patches is worth installing on the branch at
this point? If no, we should mark the PR as WONTFIX, the workaround is easy.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 15:17
---
Created an attachment (id=20398)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20398&action=view)
Potential, untested fix.
* tree-sra.c (bitfield_overlaps_p): If the length of the element is
--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 15:15
---
Known problem in the SRA pass.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
