SIGN_EXTRACT feature, perhaps

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 19990407025736.C9381@cygnus.com >you write:
  > On Wed, Apr 07, 1999 at 03:38:54AM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
  > >   > No.  SIGN_EXTRACT is read-only.  ZERO_EXTRACT as a destination is
  > >   > a bitfield insertion, and as such it doesn't matter about sign,
  > >   > so we just worry about the one.
  > > I hate to disagree with you, but....  Note carefully "they may appear
  > > on the left side of an assignment".  Perhaps you're confusing them with
  > > zero/sign_extend which only appear in a source operand.
  > 
  > No, I wasn't confusing sign_extend -- but I am surprised to see
  > sign_extract documented as a destination.  I thought we only used
  > zero_extract for that.
Me too. The only reason I chimed in is I've always thought the
sign/zero extract documentation needed some work as I don't think
they're as clear as they could be :-)

Otherwise I wouldn't have known they are documented as both being valid
for a LHS.


jeff