From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:36238)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <sw@weilnetz.de>) id 1RB84H-0004jE-S6
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:42:14 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <sw@weilnetz.de>) id 1RB84G-0006R3-LN
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:42:09 -0400
Received: from v220110690675601.yourvserver.net ([78.47.199.172]:59720)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <sw@weilnetz.de>) id 1RB84G-0006Qt-DJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:42:08 -0400
Message-ID: <4E8B372B.3020603@weilnetz.de>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 18:41:15 +0200
From: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4E8AF3EB.1010103@de.ibm.com>	<4E8AFAA9.3060705@suse.de>
	<CAFEAcA9CzWbZOLh1UacC=f3SsJUeqGH3cMxR194z6Rw2C+8sAw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA9CzWbZOLh1UacC=f3SsJUeqGH3cMxR194z6Rw2C+8sAw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] build errors on s390 tcg
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/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: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Carsten Otte <cotte@de.ibm.com>, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>, rth@twiddle.net

Am 04.10.2011 14:44, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> On 4 October 2011 13:23, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> wrote:
>> The problem is that tcg.c defines the functions with int arguments 
>> for TCG
>> register indexes, while s390/tcg-target.c takes TCGReg parameters. 
>> I'm not
>> sure which way is better, but using TCGReg feels more type safe to me.
>
> You're not consistent, though; for example the s390 
> tcg_target_reg_alloc_order
> array is declared as int[], not TCGReg[].
>
> -- PMM

I did not notice that s390 was different when I wrote my patch,
but I agree with Alex that TCGReg is more type safe. I also
think that using TCGReg documents the meaning of a parameter
better than using a simple int.

So there are two tasks to be done:

- Look for inconsistencies and fix them.

- Add and use TCGReg for all other targets, too.

Or are there any reasons why we should keep the int type parameters?

Regards,
Stefan Weil