From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:58203)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1RLFd8-0001Vi-5z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2011 10:48:03 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1RLFd2-00014w-Kv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2011 10:47:58 -0400
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48497 helo=mx2.suse.de)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1RLFd2-00014q-Ex
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2011 10:47:52 -0400
Message-ID: <4EB00651.5040903@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 15:46:41 +0100
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= <afaerber@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+g7VZ00KYYmgtAHf5wLTFt8QTB21KZeGx65yyR90A4CE5x8ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMo8BfKYBVgVK0pMNzoxvBu5FzL0+9wk7+op=wpSAY6SEk0C-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+g7VZ0amKxq-0NuFym5CKMpgUggiYzvBqebammtoVr=bHRmvQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+g7VZ0amKxq-0NuFym5CKMpgUggiYzvBqebammtoVr=bHRmvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] cpu_x86() ?
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: Jun Koi <junkoi2004@gmail.com>
Cc: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Am 01.11.2011 15:34, schrieb Jun Koi:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com> wrote=
:
>>> the way cpu_exec() is defined is really confused to me.
>>>
>>> in cpu-exec.c, we define cpu_exec() function.
>>>
>>> however, each architecture seems to redefine cpu_exec(), like we have
>>> in target-i386/cpu.h
>>>
>>> #define cpu_exec cpu_x86_exec
>>>
>>> so which cpu_exec() is executed in case of tcg/x86?
>>>
>>> also, i cannot find the definition of cpu_x86_exec() anywhere.
>>
>> cpu_exec definition in cpu-exec.c takes place after #include "cpu.h"
>> which contains #define cpu_exec whatever.
>> In case of x86 cpu_x86_exec is actually defined by the cpu-exec.c.
>>
>=20
> ok, so which means cpu_exec is redefined accordingly to each architectu=
re.
>=20
> why do we need to do this weird thing? as there is no namespace
> collision it seems between architectures, why dont we just let
> cpu_exec() be cpu_exec()?

See the recent discussion about heterogeneous system emulation.
Such redefinitions are a handy way to avoid name collisions across
architectures.

Andreas

--=20
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=FCrnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=F6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=FCrnbe=
rg