From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HlZjS-0003KA-Au for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 May 2007 20:08:38 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HlZjQ-0003Jy-Vr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 May 2007 20:08:38 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlZjQ-0003Jv-R3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 May 2007 20:08:36 -0400 Received: from phoenix.bawue.net ([193.7.176.60] helo=mail.bawue.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HlZcH-0001tX-P9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 May 2007 20:01:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 01:02:04 +0100 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qemu Makefile.target cpu-all.h cpu-exec.c dynge... Message-ID: <20070509000204.GC13638@networkno.de> References: <463F8AAE.3030700@mail.berlios.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <463F8AAE.3030700@mail.berlios.de> From: Thiemo Seufer Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Weil Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Stefan Weil wrote: [snip] I cherrypicked the easy bits, and will look at the rest when I have more time. > When I started to write MIPS host, I found it difficult to > get all locations which needed new code. To make it easier for > new ports, I changed sequences of #if ... #endif, #if ... #endif > into #if ... #elif ... #elif ... #else #error #endif. Some of those folded unrelated things together, I committed a different patch based on yours. > Other changes include some smaller spelling corrections. Also committed. > Most important was Johannes code for testandset and PARAMn. AFAICS that testandset implementation is broken, and I think mine is correct, maybe except for the +R vs. +m bit in the asm constraints. Did my implementation fail for you? > The patch still includes your relocation code, but it is disabled > and uses my own code. I had no time to check or try the differences. Then I gather there's no particular reason why my _PC16 reloc code is deleted in the patch. Thiemo