On 07/27/2012 07:37 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> This command attempts to map to the behavior of -cpu ?. Unfortunately, the
> output of this command differs wildly across targets.
>
> To accomodate this, we use a weak symbol to implement a default version of the
s/accomodate/accommodate/
> comm
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:37:17 -0500
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> This command attempts to map to the behavior of -cpu ?. Unfortunately, the
> output of this command differs wildly across targets.
>
> To accomodate this, we use a weak symbol to implement a default version of the
> command that fails
Peter Maydell writes:
> On 27 July 2012 14:37, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> This command attempts to map to the behavior of -cpu ?. Unfortunately, the
>> output of this command differs wildly across targets.
>
> I've never really understood why so much of the cpu selection
> logic is deferred to t
On 27 July 2012 14:37, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> This command attempts to map to the behavior of -cpu ?. Unfortunately, the
> output of this command differs wildly across targets.
I've never really understood why so much of the cpu selection
logic is deferred to target-*...
> To accomodate this,
This command attempts to map to the behavior of -cpu ?. Unfortunately, the
output of this command differs wildly across targets.
To accomodate this, we use a weak symbol to implement a default version of the
command that fails with a QERR_NOT_SUPPORTED error code. Targets can then
override and i
