Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> writes: > On 14/07/2016 13:10, Sergey Fedorov wrote: >> > This has merge conflicts with the current state of master. Is there >> > anyway to have a common implementation that is specialised only when >> > needed? >> >> The point was to put the assumptions on invalid CPU TB state as close to >> cpu_get_tb_cpu_state() definitions as possible. So that if anyone make >> changes they can notice those assumptions and correct them if necessary. > > It causes some repetition indeed, but I think it's a good idea. > > restore_state_to_opc is another case where most implementations have the > same simple "env->pc = data[0]" implementation.
Yeah, now I've seen cpu_get_tb_cpu_state jump up the hot-path I tend to agree ;-) -- Alex Bennée
