On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 05:11:38PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > 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. An instruction in the delay slot for the instruction being emulated? How would that arise? Are there floating point instructions with delay slots? Rich
