From: Brian Gerst > Sent: 07 May 2020 14:32 ... > I think the bug this worked around was that the compiler didn't detect > that CONST_MASK(nr) was also constant and doesn't need to be put into > a register. The question is does that bug still exist on compiler > versions we care about? Hmmm... That ought to have been fixed instead of worrying about the fact that an invalid register was used. Alternatively is there any reason not to use the bts/btc instructions? Yes, I know they'll do wider accesses, but variable bit numbers do. It is also possible that the assembler will support constant bit numbers >= 32 by adding to the address offset. David - Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
