On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Peter Gavin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Matthew Hicks <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I much prefer the nop hacks as it made debugging things much easier. >> I could just insert a special nop-based sequence and find out what was >> going on. The nop hacks are great because they don't require any >> library support, or extra hardware, and they don't perturb the system. > > > Fair point. Plus I suppose a testsuite could just call a function that > chooses which method to use. > > There ought to be a testsuite that's maintained separately from any of the > implementations, and I figure such a testsuite ought not to use the nop > hack. I figure it could make it optional, though, and allow some > implementations to support it. > > -Pete
Kind of like a OR1K certification testbench? ---Matthew Hicks _______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
