From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19385 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2006 18:18:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 19376 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2006 18:18:16 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:18:15 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k2FIICqS023260; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:18:12 -0500 Received: from pobox.toronto.redhat.com (pobox.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.4]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k2FIIB111852; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:18:12 -0500 Received: from [172.16.14.227] (IDENT:q8EQmr+KqBCncDVPruMUjWsYFzTbzFnN@topaz.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.227]) by pobox.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k2FIIBxX015265; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:18:11 -0500 Message-ID: <44185A63.4080102@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:18:00 -0000 From: Dave Brolley User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans CC: Hans-Peter Nilsson , cgen@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA:] Fix breakage of manually building SID CPU References: <200603150124.k2F1O5Rk014471@ignucius.se.axis.com> <441849ED.1030503@redhat.com> <17432.19335.929714.809110@casey.transmeta.com> In-Reply-To: <17432.19335.929714.809110@casey.transmeta.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00029.txt.bz2 Doug Evans wrote: >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? :-) > > For the record, I agree with you that it's a s-t-r-e-t-c-h. > > 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.] > > They're not both needed in language terms. Everything can be done using the "new" implementation. I was just thinking that the "old" should still work for legacy code. Dave