On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:17 PM, R. Diez <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> GCC defines __or1k__, so I was going to make it define __or1knd__ if >> no delay slots are used, to match what I'm calling the no-delay-slots >> architecture. > > Is it worth defining a new architecture name like __or1knd__? After all, we > have only one toolchain and the delay slot is just an option. > rdiez
Perhaps not. But it makes it less likely that people will try mixing code that uses a delay slot with code that doesn't. But I think I've got bfd set up now so that it will set a flag in the ELF header indicating the binary doesn't use delay slots. I also added a ".nodelay" directive to GAS that indicates that as well. That way when GCC compiles something without delay slots, it can indicate it in the assembly file, and it will be carried all the way down to the binary. So perhaps a separate arch name isn't needed. -Pete _______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
