From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59721)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <richard.henderson@linaro.org>) id 1dz5Xk-0006UK-QL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 14:34:17 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <richard.henderson@linaro.org>) id 1dz5Xk-0003mc-3M
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 14:34:16 -0400
Received: from mail-qt0-x230.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::230]:44403)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <richard.henderson@linaro.org>)
	id 1dz5Xj-0003mI-TZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 14:34:16 -0400
Received: by mail-qt0-x230.google.com with SMTP id y57so3640381qta.1
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 11:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
References: <20170928165414.7339-1-richard.henderson@linaro.org>
	<20170928165414.7339-5-richard.henderson@linaro.org>
	<17f88913-12dc-b462-d6fd-9b1c6cfbd6a9@amsat.org>
From: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <1085a4f8-d12b-f87c-caa7-a9927247d7e8@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:34:12 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <17f88913-12dc-b462-d6fd-9b1c6cfbd6a9@amsat.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 4/9] disas: Support the Capstone
 disassembler library
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= <f4bug@amsat.org>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-ID: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>

On 10/02/2017 09:36 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> Maybe some defines like:
> 
> #define LARGEST_TARGET_INSTR_SIZE 32
> 
> #define MINIMUM_TARGET_PAGE_SIZE 1024

Eh.  If I weren't simply pulling numbers out of my hat, perhaps.
Does it really make things clearer beyond sizeof or a great big comment?


r~