From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K1Maf-0000UB-FR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2008 10:25:21 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K1Mad-0000TD-Kl for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2008 10:25:20 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52167 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K1Mad-0000T9-AH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2008 10:25:19 -0400 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]:41643) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K1Mac-0006kt-QP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2008 10:25:19 -0400 From: Paul Brook Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] Simplify cpu_exec - spin 3 Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 15:25:10 +0100 References: <1211983296-27395-1-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1211983296-27395-1-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200805281525.11789.paul@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Glauber Costa On Wednesday 28 May 2008, Glauber Costa wrote: > Hi guys, > > here's a new spin of the patches I sent yesterday. It basically merges the > comments I received, and adapts to the current state of the svn tree. > Also, as Fabrice said multiple times inlining would be better, I'm taking > a new approach, and instead of defining functions, I'm defining empty > macros (for the general case), and archictectures that need it can then > override. It results in substantially less code. I'm not so sure this is a good idea. IMHO using macros to implement functions is ugly. That's what inline functions are for :-) Providing a default implementation is also a fairly suspect idea. When adding a new target I like that we generate an error error when I forget to populate all of the target specific routines. The same applies when making changes to generic code, you're forced to go through every target and update them. Paul