This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: insv vs one-bit fields
- From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- To: rth at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:56:54 -0500
- Subject: Re: insv vs one-bit fields
- References: <200509030140.j831eKAS007043@greed.delorie.com> <20050904174712.GA6886@redhat.com> <200601032147.k03LlV73028561@greed.delorie.com>
Re-revisiting it...
> Revisiting an old thread...
> > On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 09:40:20PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > > So... why is it illegal to put a constant into a single bit field?
> >
> > Probably because it was more efficient to use some other pattern
> > for some other target.
>
> That's a bad reason to put it in the MI code, since the target could
> simply reject those requests itself. Does anyone remember which
> target needed this? If not, can we remove that test?
Nobody has said anything about this for the last two weeks. Can we
remove this restriction now?