On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Peter Gavin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 04/24/2012 05:06 PM, Ouabache Designworks wrote: > >> >> >> Personally I would have gone with positive logic where you have a delay >> bit that is 1 when you have a delay and 0 when you don't. >> > > The reason I chose the opposite was that for the current architecture with > the delay slot, the hard-wired value of 0 that is currently specified in > the manual would be unchanged. > > -Pete > Dang it. Another legacy support issue. Or2k is looking better and better all the time. You get a fresh start and you don't have to deal with all these things. John Eaton
_______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
