Need advice with store_bit_field and its call chain

[Jim Wilson]

Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I have not unsnarled the third clause, but it doesn't 
> matter, because the second one is the problem.  The
> bitsize is 128, but GET_MODE_BITSIZE (XFmode) is 96
> (really should be 80, but that breaks too much other
> stuff).  The bitsize is coming from store_constructor:

The problem arises because we have GET_MODE_SIZE (XFmode) == 16, and 
GET_MODE_BITSIZE (XFmode) == 96, and thus the byte size is not bitsize * 
BITS_PER_UNIT.  So I think you should test for that.

Perhaps
   && (bitsize == GET_MODE_BITSIZE (fieldmode)
       || bitsize == GET_MODE_SIZE (fieldmode) * BITS_PER_UNIT)

This would deserve a comment, as anyone looking at this is going to be 
very confused about why we need both tests, when they are obviously the 
same test.

Or maybe we only need the GET_MODE_SIZE test, because that one is always 
be the correct test?
-- 
Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com