On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 09:20:19PM +, Blue Swirl wrote:
> Refactor common code around calls to cpu_restore_state().
>
> tb_find_pc() has now no external users, make it static.
>
> Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl
> ---
> exec-all.h|6 ++
> hw/kvmvapic.c
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 04.12.2012 22:20, schrieb Blue Swirl:
>> Refactor common code around calls to cpu_restore_state().
>>
>> tb_find_pc() has now no external users, make it static.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl
>
> Would've been nice to get CC'ed on the r
Am 04.12.2012 22:20, schrieb Blue Swirl:
> Refactor common code around calls to cpu_restore_state().
>
> tb_find_pc() has now no external users, make it static.
>
> Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl
Would've been nice to get CC'ed on the refactoring of a cpu_* function...
I've reviewed mostly the non-
Refactor common code around calls to cpu_restore_state().
tb_find_pc() has now no external users, make it static.
Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl
---
exec-all.h|6 ++
hw/kvmvapic.c |4 +---
target-alpha/helper.c | 14 +++---
target-alp
On 4 December 2012 21:39, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 2012-12-04 15:25, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> So this is just a refactoring, but it prompts me to ask -- how does
>> this work if the PC that caused us to take this TLB fill is legitimately
>> zero? We seem to be overloading retaddr==0 as a "not
On 2012-12-04 15:25, Peter Maydell wrote:
> So this is just a refactoring, but it prompts me to ask -- how does
> this work if the PC that caused us to take this TLB fill is legitimately
> zero? We seem to be overloading retaddr==0 as a "not a real cpu fault"
> indicator...
Since this is a host co
On 4 December 2012 21:20, Blue Swirl wrote:
> diff --git a/target-arm/op_helper.c b/target-arm/op_helper.c
> index 6e3ab90..1fcc975 100644
> --- a/target-arm/op_helper.c
> +++ b/target-arm/op_helper.c
> @@ -74,19 +74,13 @@ uint32_t HELPER(neon_tbl)(CPUARMState *env, uint32_t
> ireg, uint32_t def,
