On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? Yes branches.
