From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=49211 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OKb2o-0008G4-31
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 13:50:59 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <froydnj@codesourcery.com>) id 1OKb2i-0005Ac-Vc
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 13:50:57 -0400
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([38.113.113.100]:36082)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <froydnj@codesourcery.com>) id 1OKb2i-0005AL-NX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 13:50:52 -0400
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 10:50:51 -0700
From: Nathan Froyd <froydnj@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 03/10] target-mips: add enum constants for
	various invocations of FOP
Message-ID: <20100604175050.GG19235@codesourcery.com>
References: <1274717984-25887-1-git-send-email-froydnj@codesourcery.com>
	<1274717984-25887-4-git-send-email-froydnj@codesourcery.com>
	<4C093BBC.6060509@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4C093BBC.6060509@redhat.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, aurelien@aurel32.net

On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 10:45:32AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 05/24/2010 09:19 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> > @@ -5937,8 +6031,8 @@ static void gen_farith (DisasContext *ctx, uint32_t op1,
> >      enum { BINOP, CMPOP, OTHEROP } optype = OTHEROP;
> >      uint32_t func = ctx->opcode & 0x3f;
> >  
> > -    switch (ctx->opcode & FOP(0x3f, 0x1f)) {
> > -    case FOP(0, 16):
> > +    switch (opc) {
> > +    case OPC_ADD_S:
> 
> For instance, "opc" would seem to be a good candidate for a variable
> to be switched to the enumeration type.
> 
> ... Except that I can't seem to find the definition of "opc" at this
> point in patch 3?  It looks like the argument "op1" should be what's
> used here.  Is this a case of patches being split incorrectly?

This is indeed supposed to be op1; the typo gets fixed in patch 6.

What's the benefit from declaring op1 as 'enum fopcode' or similar?

-Nathan