> For OR2K I'd like to see the ISA re-done from scratch. It wouldn't be > just delay slot dropping, it'd be an entirely different instruction > set to address the horrible code density OR1K has. Having baggage in > terms of backward compatibility of ISAs will be counterproductive.
Now _that_ would be a lot of work. I would be happy if we could iron out all problems in and around OpenRISC with the current instruction set. I don't mind if the code density is poor. Just my opinion. > I'm inclined to put in an extension or something in the OR1K spec > saying that delay slots are optional and machines without delay slots > should set bit X in SPR Y. What do we think? That sounds like a good plan to me. Cheers, rdiez _______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
