From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David Mosberger-Tang" Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:00:53 +0000 Subject: Re: Inquiry about brl statement Message-Id: List-Id: References: <200704271716.57969.christian.kandeler@hob.de> In-Reply-To: <200704271716.57969.christian.kandeler@hob.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org Tony, I'm sure I missed that point about brl. I probably just assumed it would have the same behavior as regular branches. Thanks for catching that. --david On 4/27/07, Luck, Tony wrote: > > As I remember it, a taken branch acts as a stop whereas a non-taken > > branch doesn't (so if no explicit stop bit is following a branch, then > > it must be OK for the entire group to be executed in parallel). I > > suppose it's possible the definition changed or that my (admittedly > > bad) memory is playing tricks on me. ;-) > > The SDM page for "brl" doesn't look to have any get-out-of stop-bits-free > option. It says: > > "This instruction must be immediately followed by a stop; otherwise > its behaviour is undefined." > > -Tony > -- Mosberger Consulting LLC, http://www.mosberger-consulting.com/