From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MmBmX-0000tp-Gq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:27:41 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MmBmT-0000rA-ON
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:27:41 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39687 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MmBmT-0000r0-Hn
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:27:37 -0400
Received: from tx2ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com ([65.55.88.13]:12485
	helo=TX2EHSOBE005.bigfish.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_MD5:16)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <Andre.Przywara@amd.com>)
	id 1MmBmT-0006rk-7g
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:27:37 -0400
Message-ID: <4AAAA56C.2050108@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:30:52 +0200
From: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 09/12] cpuid: simplify CPUID flag search
	function
References: <1252621257-26364-1-git-send-email-andre.przywara@amd.com>
	<1252621257-26364-10-git-send-email-andre.przywara@amd.com>
	<20090911075500.GE31399@amit-x200.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090911075500.GE31399@amit-x200.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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.gnu.org/pipermail/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: Amit Shah <amit.shah@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Fri) Sep 11 2009 [00:20:54], Andre Przywara wrote:
>> avoid code duplication and handle the CPUID flag name search in a
>> loop.
>> --- a/target-i386/cpuid.c
>> +++ b/target-i386/cpuid.c
>> @@ -71,29 +71,22 @@ static void add_flagname_to_bitmaps(const char *flagname, uint32_t *features,
>>                                      uint32_t *ext2_features,
>>                                      uint32_t *ext3_features)
>>  {
 >>...
>> +    for (j = 0; j < 4; j++) {
>> +        for (i = 0; i < 32; i++) {
>> +            if (feature_names[j][i] &&
>> +                !strcmp(flagname, feature_names[j][i])) {
>> +                *feature_flags[j] |= 1 << i;
>> +                found = 1;
>> +            }
>> +    }
>>      if (!found) {
>>          fprintf(stderr, "CPU feature %s not found\n", flagname);
>>      }
> 
> This just reports the entire string, right? Not just the feature as the
> printf suggests.
What makes you think so? flagname is just the single flag (being 
returned by strtok in the caller, wich null-terminates its results). 
Otherwise the strcmp() above would not work either...
Unknown flags will be reported, but do not abort QEMU (I checked this 
myself by accident ;-)

Regards,
Andre.

-- 
Andre Przywara
AMD-OSRC (Dresden)
Tel: x29712