From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:53465) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sn4c5-0003Ui-0B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 05:14:13 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sn4c2-0003ok-Jx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 05:14:08 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:45001) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sn4c2-0003oT-Bj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 05:14:06 -0400 Message-ID: <4FF6AC59.4050606@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 11:14:01 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4FF2C463.2080202@redhat.com> <4FF3FFFA.6090901@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/6] qemu-log: move logging to qemu-log.c List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Blue Swirl Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Am 05.07.2012 20:07, schrieb Blue Swirl: > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> Am 03.07.2012 21:19, schrieb Blue Swirl: >>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: >>>> Am 09.06.2012 14:12, schrieb Blue Swirl: >>>>> Move logging functions from exec.c to qemu-log.c, >>>>> compile it only once. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl >>>> >>>> This broke the TARGET_I386 specific logging options. >>> >>> Also DEBUG_IOPORT. Maybe the logger should be compiled for each >>> target, but that does not look attractive. >> >> The options that I see are more or less: >> >> 1. Compile the file for each target >> 2. Move only cpu_log_items[] to a separately compiled file >> 3. Replace the #ifdef by a runtime check > > I think we could just remove #ifdeffery and adjust the text with > "(x86)", for example > "show protected mode far calls/returns/exceptions (x86 only)" > > It should be safe to enable all options, obviously some of them won't > do anything if enabled for the wrong architecture. Right, should be good enough indeed. Kevin