From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L6SzO-0002MQ-HO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:48:14 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L6SzM-0002LY-K3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:48:13 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51492 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L6SzM-0002LS-Ey for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:48:12 -0500 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:36018) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L6SzM-0000lP-5q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:48:12 -0500 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L6SzK-0007th-5d for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:48:10 -0500 From: Paul Brook Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Some fixes for TCG debugging Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 16:47:57 +0000 References: <761ea48b0811180702r6dce9a44n2bde8e69abf6a5d6@mail.gmail.com> <761ea48b0811290749q19466d09kbf21cd1ff34fb69a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200811291647.57683.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: Blue Swirl On Saturday 29 November 2008, Blue Swirl wrote: > On 11/29/08, Laurent Desnogues wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Laurent Desnogues > > > > wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Laurent Desnogues > > > > > > wrote: > > >> Hello, > > >> > > >> this fixes a few things after Paul's improvements for TCG debugging: > > >> > > >> - change TCGv_i64 field name to something different from > > >> TCGv_i32 > > >> - fix things in tcg that the above change made visible. > > > > > > No comment about that patch? Except that it lacks this: > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Desnogues > > > > Still no comment for something that obvious? > > Looks OK. Anybody mind if I apply this? IMHO it would make sense to call them i32/i64, thather than i/i2. Paul