On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 06:18:32PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2007 2:55 PM, Paul Mundt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The T-state check for bt/bf happens _prior_ to execution of the delay
> > slot instruction, while any delay-slot resident T-bit modifier is
> > executed by the time we enter the branch. I don't know if your code
> > handles that or not, but figured it's probably good to make that
> > explicit. T-bit modifiers are always a bit hairy..
>
> Yeah, the T flag is indeed a bit hairy. The patch should handle the T
> bit exactly as you describe it. As part of the bt/bf instruction the T
> flag is evaluated and if true the the DELAY_SLOT_TRUE bit is set. This
> bit is later used to decide if we should jump or not after the delay
> slot instruction.
>
Ok, I have no objection to these changes then.
