On 08/03/2024 15.00, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 12:54, Thomas Huth <[email protected]> wrote:
I gave it a try, but then we end up again with the problem that I already
mentioned in the discussion about patch 1: CONFIG_ARM_V7M is not set for the
linux-user binaries, so m_helper.c would not get included there anymore and
we end up with lots of link failures.
So if you don't like the current shape, I guess this needs a little bit more
pondering 'til it gets acceptable.
But could you maybe at least pick up the first patch already? ... since it's
a patch with lots of code movement in it, this is quite ugly to rebase it
each time someone touches some lines of code in that area...
I don't object to taking the first patch, but... it doesn't apply
so it needs rebasing :-/ If you can rebase and send it out this
afternoon I can put it in a pullreq I'm working on.
That's what I meant with it's "ugly to rebase it" ;-) ... fortunately, it
was only a rather simple conflict this time.
I sent out a v3 now, also including another try for the second patch (which
now includes the stubs that assert() in the m_helper.c file itself instead
of using a separate stub file). Not sure whether that looks much nicer, but
at least it seems to work from a compilation/linking perspective. Anyway, if
you could at least include patch 1 from that v3 in your next pull request,
that would be great!
Thanks,
Thomas
