[RFA:] Fix for lsb0? in -gen-extract-word, take 3.

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Hi -


On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 12:07:31PM -0700, Doug Evans wrote:
> [...]
>  > Perhaps it can let some of those
>  > unknown ports which currently must kludge "lsb0? == #f" to now
>  > define "lsb0? == #t"?
> 
> It's unfortunate such ports didn't forge ahead with the correct
> choice and work through the bugs.  [...]

Well, crafty as that sounds, it is the case that if someone chooses
to model a chip with lsb0=#f, and use cgen in that better-defined
regime, then a patch that breaks that regime is suspect.  Merely
labelling the status quo an "incorrect choice" doesn't quite
satisfy the burden of proof.

Anyway, this is all moot until we test some of the more adventurous
targets.  Once HP's patches are all in, we can run some tests and
report back.


- FChE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/cgen/attachments/20020627/ade367bf/attachment.sig>