On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 10:25 +0100, Julius Baxter wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Jeremy Bennett > <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip> > > I would discourage l.lw as a synonym. It does rather assume you are in a > > 32-bit world, and would be misleading for a 64-bit world. > > I think it's fine. We can just specify that l.lw encodes as l.lwz and > I think we achieve what we want. If the 64-bit tool chain needs a > l.lws it can emit one, or the user can type one, but for all 32-bit > cases and most 64-bit word-load cases, l.lw will be fine. I was recommending this on the principle of forcing the user to be explicit about what they intend. For consistency if we go down this route, you should also add l.lb and l.lh as synonyms for l.lbz and l.lhz. Do we know if other architectures default to zero or sign-extension in their mnemonics? What does MIPS do? > I've added the proposal to the architecture spec page: > > http://opencores.org/or1k/Architecture_Specification#l.lw_assembly_mnemonic > There wasn't a discussion page, so I've added a commentary on the section itself. If you prefer, please move this to the discussion page. Best wishes, Jeremy -- Tel: +44 (1590) 610184 Cell: +44 (7970) 676050 SkypeID: jeremybennett Email: [email protected] Web: www.embecosm.com _______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
