Hamish Marson wrote: > Timothy Miller wrote: >>> On 7/10/06, Hamish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>>> NOOP.vh >>>>> >>>>> Is that good, or would that confuse people, since it's the same >>>>> >>>> syntax >>>> >>>> Actually calling it a NOOP confuses me... NOOP to me means >>>> increment the program counter. Do nothing else. Affect no other >>>> flags... Why separate by a .? Why not something like >>>> >>>> ASSERT v,h >>>> >>>> It's clear, does what it says on the tin. etc. >>> I see your point, but at the same time, all instructions assert >>> flags. It's just that the NOOP does nothing BUT assert flags. See? >>> :) >>> > > Yes, but AFAIK on any other architecture, it doesn't. I know we're > arging semantics here, and it's not even hardware really, but NOOP's > have always been described as NO OPERATION. Including > setting/resetting flags. > > To redefine what a NOOP is, even for a private architecture like > this.. It just doesn't feel right... >
Maybe it would make some sense treating these instructions as VLIW - instruction composed of several sections. Then in one of them, you could have NOOP as really nothing, and in another V/H sync and so on. Is there some "standard" how to write an VLIW instruction in text to one line? Daniel _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
