insv vs one-bit fields

[Paul Schlie]

> From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
>> - 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?