On 09/03/14 16:36, Peter Gavin wrote: > On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Christian Svensson <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > or1knd has a non-trivial presence in our code base, and it changes a > quite fundamental assumption of the or1k architecture. > Running or1knd code on or1k (or the other way around) would certainly > produce all kinds of weird results, I'm not sure it's something you > would like to tweak with a flag. Possibly we could add a flag to make > the code generated usable for both by always putting nop where the > delay slots would be. > > > There are 3 flags, IIRC: -mdelay, -mno-delay, and -mcompat-delay. The > third one does what you're suggesting here. > > BTW the effect of changing between or1k and or1knd at configure time is > just to change which of these is the default. No matter which is > chosen, you can still use one of the flags to change the delay-slot setting.
Thanks for the info. This seems a compelling reason to just have or1k and dropping or1knd. Best wishes, Jeremy -- Tel: +44 (1590) 610184 Cell: +44 (7970) 676050 SkypeID: jeremybennett Twitter: @jeremypbennett Email: [email protected] Web: www.embecosm.com _______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
