This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: MIPS assembler branch relaxations
On Sep 14, 2002, Thiemo Seufer <ica2_ts@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> wrote:
>> Why beqzl? Admittedly, I don't know much about MIPS hardware, but I'd
>> think that just "b" would probably be faster, since that's the normal
>> unconditional branch.
> "b" isn't a valid opcode. :-)
Right. `b foo' is just a shorthand for `beq $0, $0, foo'
> Btw, "beqzl" also isn't one.
Huh? Please check your ISA manual again. It surely is there.
> In this special case I'd prefer "beq".
Then other branch prediction forms would kick in, and the branch would
probably be considered unlikely for being a forward branch. I don't
know whether mips has any such considerations, but indicating the
branch is likely if there is a way to do so is an obvious improvement
to me.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer