On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 11:28:23AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > Also interesting to compare just the 'opcodes' between those two. I took > those FFFG bytes as an opcode and compared them. Taking out pure > additions/removals I'm left with: > > -217b > +218b > > -317b > +318b > > -40ab > +40bb > > -50ab > -30ac > +50bb > +30bc > > -30ac > +30bc > > -30ac > +30bc > > -205b > +206b > > -507b > +508b > > -306c > +307c > > -304c > +305c > > and some more. You'll note that in all cases, the FFF value is just one > higher... Hmm. Should see what complete instructions belong to these.
Does the last bit of FFF belongs to G ? It would make more sense to me, but then we need a new definition for G. Martin _______________________________________________ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
