Open balokir opened 5 years ago
Hi @balokir,
Thanks for highlighting this. This looks clearly like a misalignment to me. I'd rather expect values between 0 and 31, here. But perhaps we had already 64-bit registers in mind which would need a value range up to 63. Allowing values up to 69, effectively, would result from using a trivial pattern instead of a more complex one.
I'll take this on and report back as soon as it got fixed. @thorstendb-ARM, can you comment on this?
Cheers, Jonatan
bitRangeType declared as the following: