OPENCORES.ORG

Hi,

* ic_baowp@y... (ic_baowp@y...) wrote:
> Hi,
>   I am a Digital IC Designer coming from china.
>   I want to join the team to study OpenRISC1200,can somebody share 
> the code with me? Also you can assign some job or task to me.I am glad 
> to do it.

the code is in the CVS, this is the direct link:

	http://www.opencores.org/cvsweb.shtml/or1k/or1200/

you may also use other CVS clients. details are in:

	http://www.opencores.org/faq.cgi/index

as for your project, one thing that comes to my mind at this point is a
N-way write back cache.

best regards,
p. 

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Matjaz Breskvar<phoenix@o...> 
> To: 
> Date: Thu Jul 14 01:53:46 CEST 2005 
> Subject: [openrisc] status of OpenRISC 
> 
> > Hi Johan, 
> > 
> > Yeah, i checked the code. What happen is that gcc sometimes makes 
> a 
> > return 
> > from funtction in more than one place in a function (when before it 
> > always 
> > branched to the end of function where the return was). this can 
> > produce 
> > sometimes a bit bigger code (though also a bit faster code). the 
> > main 
> > problem is that it doesn't work correctly... (linux doesn't boot, 
> > and 
> > sometimes there is now instruction after l.jr r9, which is terribly 
> > wrong.) 
> > regards, 
> > p. 
> > * Johan Rydberg (jrydberg at night.trouble.net) wrote: 
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 
> > > Hash: SHA1 
> > > 
> > > Matjaz Breskvar <phoenix at opencores.org> writes: 
> > > 
> > > >> > i think i'll try to merge your movhi/addi stuff 
> > and epilogue to see what 
> > > >> > happens. i'm still not happy with extendqisi2 
> > and extendhisi2 when using 
> > > >> > volatile C modifier... (arm correctly optimizes 
> > lbz+extbs -> lbs even if 
> > > >> > volatile is used). 
> > > >> 
> > > >> Yes, please do. I'm a bit interested in the result as 
> > well :) 
> > > > 
> > > > compiling linux with prologue / epilogue stuff actually 
> > increases code size 
> > > > by approx 0.5%. 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > How is that possible? It should in the worst case generate the 
> > exact 
> > > same code as was previously generated. Have you looked at the 
> > > generated code? 
> > > 
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 
> > > Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) 
> > > Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 
> > <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/> 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> iD8DBQFC1Z9p3CqIy3K3X2ERAl1GAJ9xTgdDxsHS+jlH2IrFuPkuQdRpzwCgoiF
> V 
> > > DxipJTCRvsCLr9Y4nn9wxaE= 
> > > =1lL1 
> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________ 
> > > http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/openrisc 
> > 
> > 