From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20170 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2002 15:10:45 -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 20129 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2002 15:10:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO miranda.axis.se) (193.13.178.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Jan 2002 15:10:40 -0000 Received: from ignucius.axis.se (root@ignucius.axis.se [10.13.1.18]) by miranda.axis.se (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -2) with ESMTP id g0UFAWrX029152; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:10:32 +0100 Received: (from hp@localhost) by ignucius.axis.se (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) id QAA32656; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:10:32 +0100 Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 07:10:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200201301510.QAA32656@ignucius.axis.se> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson To: fche@redhat.com CC: bje@redhat.com, hans-peter.nilsson@axis.com, cgen@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20020129230649.E14633@redhat.com> (fche@redhat.com) Subject: Re: Confusion: setup-semantics? PC not updated? Immediate operands? X-SW-Source: 2002-q1/txt/msg00023.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 23:06:49 -0500 > From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" > On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 12:46:46PM +1100, Ben Elliston wrote: > > [...] > > arm.cpu was the first port to use setup-semantics and back then, we > > were doing early SID component development. [...] > > Odd - I thought that this setup-semantics stuff was just an > experimental stub, like a bunch of other cgen constructs. > Normally I would try getting this sort of work done outside > cgen, within the hand-written portion of instruction execution > loops. Seeing it in the manual and not marked as experimental made me think it was ready for the masses. (Same goes for "condition".) > As to the original question of who increments the PC, this > depends on several parameters: whether sid or sim family, > whether scache or pbb generated kernel. AFAIK the > setup-semantics stuff is never actually *necessary*. Could you please elaborate? I agree that the setup-semantics feature isn't necessary in general, though it helps simplifying the CGEN description. But you mention this in context of (incrementing) PC, so it looks as if you mean something specific. Not necessary to obtain a PC value? I can't get a correct PC value for non-CTI insns. brgds, H-P