> From: DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> - so then any valid width bit-field should be considered a >> correspondingly valid const and/or volatile bit-field, which may >> potentially be more efficiently accessed as a function of a target's >> specific ISA? > > The "insv" pattern *already* does this. It just doesn't support the > one-bit-bitfield case.
- which was your point of being unnecessarily restrictive?
