From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55937) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VK20N-0008OS-CD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 04:12:05 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VK20H-0001iH-Bt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 04:11:59 -0400 Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com ([194.213.3.17]:16294) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VK20H-0001iD-3y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 04:11:53 -0400 Message-ID: <52317715.20807@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:11:01 +0200 From: Claudio Fontana MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1378144503-15808-1-git-send-email-rth@twiddle.net> <522D8339.1090002@huawei.com> <522DD679.9030201@twiddle.net> <522DE2EF.1010902@huawei.com> <522DE416.80406@twiddle.net> <522ED7D9.4000009@huawei.com> <522F1BAC.8090708@twiddle.net> In-Reply-To: <522F1BAC.8090708@twiddle.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 00/29] tcg-aarch64 improvements List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Richard Henderson Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 10.09.2013 15:16, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 09/10/2013 01:27 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote: >> There are two aspects. >> >> On one side, although some changes do not break anything, I see some problems in them. > > Then let us discuss them, sooner rather than later. > >> Putting them as a prerequisite for the rest forces us to agreeing on >> everything before moving forward, instead of being able to agree on separate >> chunks (meat first, rest later). In my view, this makes the process longer. > > If we have no common ground on how the port should look, then we simply cannot > move forward full stop. > > Having put together a foundation of AArch64Insn and tcg_fmt_*, that I believe > to be clean and easy to understand, I simply refuse on aesthetic grounds to on aesthetic grounds? > rewrite later patches to instead use the magic number and open-coded insn > format used throughout the port today. That way leads to a much greater chance > of error in my opinion. > I just asked you to reorder the way you do things, so that I had less work to do when dissecting problems in the actual functional changes. If it's really impossible for you to do that, I guess we can move forward anyway, it just creates more work here before we can have a chunk we agree on. I will put additional comments on the parts that I would like to see improved. Thanks, Claudio