From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10332 invoked by alias); 16 Jun 2011 19:14:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 10323 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jun 2011 19:14:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ww0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-ww0-f51.google.com) (74.125.82.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:14:08 +0000 Received: by wwf26 with SMTP id 26so1729035wwf.8 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:14:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.55.67 with SMTP id t3mr1249408wbg.90.1308251647200; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:14:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.28.69 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:14:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201106161924.52675.ebotcazou@adacore.com> References: <4DFA3421.6020603@redhat.com> <201106161924.52675.ebotcazou@adacore.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:23:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC][1/2] Bitfield lowering, add BIT_FIELD_EXPR From: Richard Guenther To: Eric Botcazou Cc: Richard Henderson , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Richard Guenther Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg01287.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Eric Botcazou wrot= e: >> I think this would be clearer with a name like DEPOSIT_EXPR, >> similar to the ia64 deposit instruction. > > ia64's demise wasn't entirely undeserved then. =A0IMO the descriptive pow= er of > DEPOSIT_EXPR is almost null. =A0BIT_FIELD_MODIFY_EXPR or something like t= his. It's more like BIT_FIELD_COMPOSE_EXPR which is why I chose BIT_FIELD_EXPR, similar to how we have COMPLEX_EXPR which composes two scalar values. I don't mind changing the name though, but maybe to BIT_FIELD_COMPOSE_EXPR then? The expansion code is ad-hoc, I'm not too familiar with what utilities we have to do a better job here. I'll have a look at store_bit_field (though that sounds memory-esque). Richard. > -- > Eric Botcazou >