Re: [openrisc] cpu extensibility

["Damjan Lampret" <lampret@opencores.org>]

Hi Paul,

easy is a relative term. If you ask me, I'd say yes. The easiest way is to
look how l.mul or l.mac are implemented.

regards,
Damjan

----- Original Message -----
From: "paul" <paulw@mmail.ath.cx>
To: <openrisc@opencores.org>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 1:34 PM
Subject: [openrisc] cpu extensibility


> Hi
>
> Does the current OPENRISC structure (implementation), make adding new
> instructions easy?
> What I have in mind is to add instructions that can't be done in few
> cycles but a lot of cycles.
> Specifically, can I add a new instruction say -- that would do big
> number multiplication , or do operations on a big chuck of memory, etc?
> The C compiler don't have to know about the instructions, it will be
> embedded assembly codes in C code.
> Can it be done easily?
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from openrisc mailing list please visit
http://www.opencores.org/mailinglists.shtml
>

--
To unsubscribe from openrisc mailing list please visit http://www.opencores.org/mailinglists.shtml