On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 04:48:52PM -0700, David Daney wrote: >> On 10/06/2014 04:38 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> >On 10/06/2014 02:58 PM, Rich Felker wrote: >> >>On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 02:45:29PM -0700, David Daney wrote: >> [...] >> >>This is a huge ill-designed mess. >> > >> >Amen. >> > >> >Can the kernel not just emulate the instructions directly? >> >> In theory it could, but since there can be implementation defined >> instructions, there is no way to achieve full instruction set >> coverage for all possible machines. > > Is the issue really implementation-defined instructions with delay > slots? If so it sounds like a made-up issue. They're not going to > occur in real binaries. Certainly a compiler is not going to generate > implementation-defined instructions, and if you're writing the asm by > hand, you just don't put floating point instructions in the delay > slot. It is not the instruction with delay slot but rather the instruction in the delay slot itself. Thanks, Andrew
