On 07/24/2017 02:42 AM, Claudiu Zissulescu wrote:
+@item -mlpc-width=@var{lpcw}
+@opindex mlpc-width
+Specify the width of the LP_COUNT register. Valid values for
+@var{lpcw} are 8, 16, 20, 24, 28 and 32. The default width is fixed
+to 32. If the width is less than 32, the compiler does not attempt to
+transform loops in your program to use the zero-delay loop mechanism
+unless it is known that the @samp{LP_COUNT} register can hold the
+required loop-counter value. Depending on the size specified, the
+compiler and run-time library might continue to use the loop mechanism
+for various needs. This option defines macro @code{__ARC_LPC_WIDTH__}
+with the value of size.
I think it would be better to use a more meaningful name for the
argument than "lpcw". If "lpcw" refers to the same thing as "width" and
"size" later in the description, can you either use a consistent naming
convention everywhere, or else clarify what the different terms mean in
this context?
Please use consistent markup on both uses of LP_COUNT. If this is a
literal register name I think we use @code markup for such things elsewhere.
What are the units of the argument? Bits? Best to say so explicitly.
-Sandra
