On 10/20/2016 07:05 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/19/2016 08:01 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> > You might like 0xfffc better, but that does require that you count
>>> > f's appropriately for the type. That's why I like -4: it's obvious
>>> (or
>>> > should be) that it masks to a multiple o
On 10/19/2016 08:01 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> You might like 0xfffc better, but that does require that you count
> f's appropriately for the type. That's why I like -4: it's obvious (or
> should be) that it masks to a multiple of 4, and type promotion extends
> bits to the left as needed for
On 10/19/2016 05:50 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/18/2016 08:23 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> The documentation appears less than clear about whether or not loads
>>> into r0 recognize exceptions from the load, as opposed to simply not
>>> modifying r0.
>>
>> What about [1] page 10, quote:
>>
>
On 10/18/2016 08:23 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
The documentation appears less than clear about whether or not loads
into r0 recognize exceptions from the load, as opposed to simply not
modifying r0.
What about [1] page 10, quote:
The Nios II architecture provides thirty-two 32-bit general-purpose
On 10/19/2016 01:04 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/18/2016 02:50 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> +/* Special R-Type instruction opcode */
>> +#define INSN_R_TYPE 0x3A
>> +
>> +/* I-Type instruction parsing */
>> +#define I_TYPE(instr, code) \
>> +struct {
On 10/18/2016 02:50 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
+/* Special R-Type instruction opcode */
+#define INSN_R_TYPE 0x3A
+
+/* I-Type instruction parsing */
+#define I_TYPE(instr, code) \
+struct { \
+uint8_t op; \
+union {
