From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" To: matthew green Cc: cgen@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: generalizing the delay rtx function Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:55:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010314195541.S9909@redhat.com> References: <20010314080539.K32628@redhat.com> <14960.984616975@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-q1/msg00161.html Hi - mrg wrote: : [...] : you said the delay rtx would be changed to indicate the number : of "instruction cycles" before the effect is seen. my example : above shows a case where this isn't going to be known. if you : didn't mean "instruction cycles" but really "instructions" then : my point is meaningless. Ah - a terminology glitch. "instruction cycle" == time taken for an instruction; "instruction cycle" != "clock cycle". You're right; I should have just used "instruction" though, to avoid the ambiguity. - FChE -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6sBMNVZbdDOm/ZT0RAjJkAJ444Scl8L/m9xpVAnelO0y33DW0yQCaArlg n2H7TbFSg7PazO/tTos3qdU= =DIom -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----