From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 597 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2003 07:24:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cgen-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cgen-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 590 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2003 07:24:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neon-gw.transmeta.com) (63.209.4.196) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 9 Jan 2003 07:24:05 -0000 Received: (from root@localhost) by neon-gw.transmeta.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27204; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 23:23:47 -0800 Received: from mailhost.transmeta.com(10.1.1.15) by neon-gw.transmeta.com via smap (V2.1) id xma027200; Wed, 8 Jan 03 23:23:29 -0800 Received: from casey.transmeta.com (casey.transmeta.com [10.10.25.22]) by deepthought.transmeta.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h097NZ319577; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 23:23:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dje@localhost) by casey.transmeta.com (8.9.3/8.7.3) id XAA13825; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 23:23:35 -0800 From: Doug Evans MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15901.9079.191603.469002@casey.transmeta.com> Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 07:24:00 -0000 To: Ben Elliston Cc: cgen@sources.redhat.com Subject: exposed pipeline patch (long!) In-Reply-To: References: X-SW-Source: 2003-q1/txt/msg00010.txt.bz2 Handling exposed pipelines can get really messy when one takes bypass networks into account. Question: For the ports in question, are the delays ISA related or implementation related? If they're ISA related then specifying the delays in rtl is appropriate. If they're implementation related (e.g. related to the depth of the pipeline), then I think rtl isn't the way to go. [I suppose an ISA could specify the depth of the pipeline but that wouldn't be the norm.] One way to go would be to specify the hazards independently of the rtl.