On 03/20/2012 09:53 PM, Matthew Hicks wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Stefan Kristiansson <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:That's a truth with modification, isn't it? You proposed changing an implementation (or1200) not the ISA, and most felt it wasn't worth it since it could as well (and should) be handled in software. I don't think there was any discussion about unacceptable ABI breaks and changing ISAs. Stefanhttp://lists.openrisc.net/pipermail/openrisc/2011-December/000533.html where I first propose changing the ISA as well as the implementation.
Ah, yes you did, I stand corrected :) But still, changing the specification to define r0 to be hardwired to 0 or that it _has_ to be regarded as a nop is probably a too big of a change, clarifying that writing to r0 should have no side effects (except possibly writing a nonzero value to it) is another story. Stefan
_______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
