My intention was to make things consistent for readability. In the case of
gen_jz_ecx_string(), jmp_next[1] is already the "not taken" case. However,
looks like the meaning of jmp_next changes in the case of a TB loop, it
does not point to the next TB to execute any more. Anyway, I thought this
p
On 06/22/2013 09:10 AM, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
> This way, jmp_next[0] means "taken" for both conditional jumps AND
> unconditional jumps.
> Currently, it has opposite meanings for the two cases.
So? There's no proscribed meaning for the 0 and 1 indices.
r~
On 22 June 2013 17:10, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
> This way, jmp_next[0] means "taken" for both conditional jumps AND
> unconditional jumps.
> Currently, it has opposite meanings for the two cases.
This commit message is missing a rationale: do you want
to do this because:
* it fixes a bug? (if so, w
This way, jmp_next[0] means "taken" for both conditional jumps AND
unconditional jumps.
Currently, it has opposite meanings for the two cases.
Signed-off-by: Zhihui Zhang
---
target-i386/translate.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/target-i386/translate.c
