On Oct 14, 2002, "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 02:43:26PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Oct 14, 2002, "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> wrote: >> >> > The problem here is when gcc fills the delay slot with nop, it kills >> > branch relaxation. >> >> It wouldn't if only the delay slot was enclosed in .set nomacro. > What do you mean by that? Instead of: .set noreorder .set nomacro b foo nop .set macro .set reorder perhaps we could emit: .set noreorder b foo .set nomacro nop .set macro .set reorder Since b foo wouldn't be affected by nomacro, branch relaxing could fix it up (the relaxations are delay-slot-safe). -- Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer
