moto wrote: > >> BTW, if the fast emulation can't handle rdhwr in a delay slot, please >> report a bug on GCC asking it not to put rdhwr in delay slots by >> default. It's probably worthwhile. >> > > If rdhwr was on a delay slot, the slow emulation will be more slower. > So I think rdhwr should not be put on delay slot anyway regardless > fast emulation. > > I asked on GCC bugzilla a few days ago but can not got feedback yet. > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28126 > In spite of the GCC issue, is this patch now at the point where it could be applied, or at least queued? Nigel
