[RFA:] Fix lsb? bug with insn fields beyond base insn size.

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

> From: Doug Evans <dje@transmeta.com>
> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 11:05:18 -0700 (PDT)

> Hans-Peter Nilsson writes:
>  > This is a partial fix for what seems like a central problem:
>  > bitfields are expressed as (start length) but whether "start" is
>  > highest or lowest bit-number depends on "lsb0?".

> One alternative is to do the canonicalization at .cpu reading time,
> but that can also lead to confusion (causing people to revisit
> the issue again).

I'm mostly worried about bugs similar to those I found, with the
*internal* representation different for different "lsb?".
Though having the "external" (.cpu) representation different is
supposedly confusing more people than not (assuming that CGEN
attracts a larger audience than the current. ;-)

brgds, H-P