>>>>> "Martin" == Martin Husemann <martin@duskware.de> writes:

 Martin> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 10:59:19AM -0800, Eric Christopher
 Martin> wrote:
 >> Most assuredly not.

 Martin> In this cases it looks harmless - the branch (if taken) will
 Martin> ignore the incomplete work of the pseudo instruction anyway
 Martin> (but I'm not realy good at mips assembly)

I remember some cases like that -- where the NOP for the delay slot
was missing, so the warning was on an instruction needed for the "no
branch" case.  If so, the NOP should be added to clean up the code.

If the instruction that's written for the delay slot really did belong
in the delay slot, then it is post definitely broken if it expands to
multiple instructions.

	 paul