> However, patching it into a source file that needs it on a case-by-case basis is probably a fairly trivial thing to do.
This is what I meant. > The linked code is for an emulator, and is providing a *C* implementation, not a ppc32 machine-code Whatever provides the needed functionality, gonna be good enough, I guess. Let me sort out some other stuff, and I will post here the related code from Node. On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 12:21 PM Fred Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Jul 2023, Ken Cunningham wrote: > > > Adding it into cctools for the standard assembler to use whenever it > > might be needed would be something of a project, to be sure... > > I think it would be highly unusual for an assembler to replace > instructions for one architecture with instructions for another > architecture, even when the two are related. Anything generating actual > machine instructions should know what architecture it's targeting, and > generate appropriate code. > > > However, patching it into a source file that needs it on a case-by-case > > basis is probably a fairly trivial thing to do. > > Probably so, once one works out the appropriate instructions. That's not > hard in principle (though trickier for the "dotted" versions), but I'm > busy with other stuff right now (and don't currently have a working ppc64 > machine for comparison testing). The linked code is for an emulator, and > is providing a *C* implementation, not a ppc32 machine-code > implementation. > > Fred Wright >
