On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 01:16:21PM -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 12:41:56AM -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
> >> Hi Andreas, Richard and all,
> >>
> >> I'm moving towards the goal of having no core code usages
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 12:41:56AM -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
>> Hi Andreas, Richard and all,
>>
>> I'm moving towards the goal of having no core code usages of ENV_GET_CPU.
>> This has two advantages:
>>
>> 1: It means we are closer
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 12:41:56AM -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
> Hi Andreas, Richard and all,
>
> I'm moving towards the goal of having no core code usages of ENV_GET_CPU.
> This has two advantages:
>
> 1: It means we are closer to common-obj'ing core code like exec.c, cpus.c
> and friends.
>
Hi Andreas, Richard and all,
I'm moving towards the goal of having no core code usages of ENV_GET_CPU.
This has two advantages:
1: It means we are closer to common-obj'ing core code like exec.c, cpus.c
and friends.
2: Multi arch is easier if ENV_GET_CPU() stays arch specific. It means I
don't nee
