This is the mail archive of the
cgen@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the CGEN project.
Re: [RFA:] Fix lsb? bug with insn fields beyond base insn size.
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com>
- To: dje at transmeta dot com
- Cc: hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com, cgen at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 18:05:43 +0200
- Subject: Re: [RFA:] Fix lsb? bug with insn fields beyond base insn size.
> From: Doug Evans <dje@transmeta.com>
> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 08:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
> Hans-Peter Nilsson writes:
> > The highest bit-number minus the lowest bit-number is the
> > number of bits less one.
>
> Assuming one defines the field to be [low,high].
> Another legitimate definition, within a localized context such
> as intermediates used to produce some final result, is [low,high).
> I'm sure there are other contexts where such a definition is legitimate.
Ok, the comment above field-high and field-low needs expansion,
since "canonicalize on the low and high numbered ends of the
field; use the lsb?-adjusted numbering only when necessary" is
ambiguous, opening up to such off-by-one interpretation. Never
mind, as mentioned I'll send a new patch.
brgds, H-P