On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Eric Botcazou <ebotca...@adacore.com> wrote: >> 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. IMO the descriptive power of > DEPOSIT_EXPR is almost null. BIT_FIELD_MODIFY_EXPR or something like this.
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 >
