From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18137 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2006 17:14:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 18126 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2006 17:14:51 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com (HELO neon-gw.transmeta.com) (63.209.4.196) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:14:50 +0000 Received: from victor.transmeta.com (victor.transmeta.com [10.0.2.120]) by neon-gw.transmeta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 633EF5F8096; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 09:14:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.transmeta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB2E24F802C; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 09:14:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from victor.transmeta.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (victor [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10022) with LMTP id 30653-02-3; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 09:14:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from casey.transmeta.com (casey.transmeta.com [10.10.25.22]) by victor.transmeta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB84F4F8003; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 09:14:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dje@localhost) by casey.transmeta.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id k2FHEml10349; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 09:14:48 -0800 From: Doug Evans MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17432.19335.929714.809110@casey.transmeta.com> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:14:00 -0000 To: Dave Brolley Cc: Hans-Peter Nilsson , cgen@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA:] Fix breakage of manually building SID CPU In-Reply-To: <441849ED.1030503@redhat.com> References: <200603150124.k2F1O5Rk014471@ignucius.se.axis.com> <441849ED.1030503@redhat.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cgen-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cgen-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-q1/txt/msg00028.txt.bz2 Dave Brolley writes: > >So, uh, why would only parallel CPUs have delay-slots? Or do we > >actually have differing perceptions and definitions of what a > >"delay" is? > > > It's more of an extension of the notion of what parallel is. What dictionary are you looking in? :-) > The "new" delay implementation [...]. > [...] > I think that if both can be supported then that would be "a good thing > (tm)". Both what? Maybe you can elaborate on why both are needed at the rtl level? [I'm thinking in language terms, not implementation.]