Re: [RFA:] Fix breakage of manually building SID CPU

[Dave Brolley <brolley at redhat dot com>]

Doug Evans wrote:

> Dave Brolley writes:
> > >So, uh, why would only parallel CPUs have delay-slots?  Or do we
> > >actually have differing perceptions and definitions of what a
> > >"delay" is?
> > >
> > It's more of an extension of the notion of what parallel is.
>
> What dictionary are you looking in? :-)
>  
For the record, I agree with you that it's a s-t-r-e-t-c-h.

> > The "new" delay implementation [...].
> > [...]
> > I think that if both can be supported then that would be "a good thing 
> > (tm)".
>
> Both what?  Maybe you can elaborate on why both are needed
> at the rtl level? [I'm thinking in language terms, not implementation.]
>  
They're not both needed in language terms. Everything can be done using 
the "new" implementation. I was just thinking that the "old" should 
still work for legacy code.

Dave