On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Peter Gavin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Julius Baxter <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> If anyone can see any reason why we shouldn't publish this as 1.0, let me >> know. > > > The only issue I've found so far is that the l.muld and l.muldu instructions > cannot overflow.
I thought that unsigned 32-bit x 32-bit going to a 64-bit result register can't overflow. I guess signed can, though. 64-bit x 64-bit -> 64-bit result register can overflow, of course, so that's in there. So perhaps all I'm missing is the signed overflow indication on l.muld, but not l.muldu? Cheers Jules _______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
