 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Function pointers
PicoBlaze, as far as I know, does support function pointers with the "CALL@" instruction, represented in hexadecimal with 24xy0 (where x and y are registers in which the function pointer is stored). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.252.225.65 (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any references for that "CALL@" instruction"? As far as I can tell by a brief search, KCPSM3 does *not* have an indirect "CALL@" instruction.[1][2] However, KCPSM6 *does* have that instruction. [3][4][5]
Alas, apparently both KCPSM3 and KCPSM6 are confusingly both called "PicoBlaze".
How much detail should this article go into? --DavidCary (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I think that saying "PicoBlaze doesn't support function pointers." is a very misleading statement, if not outright wrong. It should not be on Wikipedia. Maybe we should not go into too much detail, but we should at least be careful not to be misleading. 89.201.229.123 (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't the article mention that there are two versions of the PicoBlaze processor and while KCPSM3 does not allow for computed branching, the KCPSM6 does? 82.143.146.166 (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Why should the article even mention that KCPSM3 didn't allow computed branching? Why would it be important that some archaic version of PicoBlaze didn't support computed branching? This is not a retrocomputing wiki. 95.178.249.61 (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'd suggest the whole "Architectural Notes" paragraph be removed. It probably contains nothing but misinformation. 89.201.234.5 (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)