From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=58497 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q8gmD-0004bR-5a
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 18:37:10 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <aurelien@aurel32.net>) id 1Q8gmB-00023g-VP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 18:37:09 -0400
Received: from hall.aurel32.net ([88.191.126.93]:47258)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <aurelien@aurel32.net>) id 1Q8gmB-00023R-O5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 18:37:07 -0400
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:37:04 +0200
From: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/3] cpu-common: Modify
	cpu_physical_memory_read and cpu_physical_memory_write
Message-ID: <20110409223704.GD11487@volta.aurel32.net>
References: <1301170017-12368-1-git-send-email-weil@mail.berlios.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1301170017-12368-1-git-send-email-weil@mail.berlios.de>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de>
Cc: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 09:06:55PM +0100, Stefan Weil wrote:
> A lot of calls don't operate on bytes but on words or on structured data.
> So instead of a pointer to uint8_t, a void pointer is the better choice.
> 
> This allows removing many type casts.
> 
> (Some very early implementations of memcpy used char pointers
> which were replaced by void pointers for the same reason).
> 
> Cc: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de>
> ---
>  cpu-common.h |    4 ++--
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/cpu-common.h b/cpu-common.h
> index ef4e8da..f44a2b0 100644
> --- a/cpu-common.h
> +++ b/cpu-common.h
> @@ -68,12 +68,12 @@ void cpu_unregister_io_memory(int table_address);
>  void cpu_physical_memory_rw(target_phys_addr_t addr, uint8_t *buf,
>                              int len, int is_write);
>  static inline void cpu_physical_memory_read(target_phys_addr_t addr,
> -                                            uint8_t *buf, int len)
> +                                            void *buf, int len)
>  {
>      cpu_physical_memory_rw(addr, buf, len, 0);
>  }
>  static inline void cpu_physical_memory_write(target_phys_addr_t addr,
> -                                             const uint8_t *buf, int len)
> +                                             const void *buf, int len)
>  {
>      cpu_physical_memory_rw(addr, (uint8_t *)buf, len, 1);

We might want to also do the change here, that is replacing (uint8_t *)
to (void *). Also instead of doing half the job, it would be nice to do
the same changes on cpu_physical_memory_rw().

>  }
 

-- 
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net