From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=39114 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q4DE5-0000hb-P9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:15:27 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4DE0-00021m-DS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:15:21 -0400 Received: from mail-vx0-f173.google.com ([209.85.220.173]:50448) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4DE0-00021h-Ay for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:15:20 -0400 Received: by vxb41 with SMTP id 41so2628620vxb.4 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 07:15:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20110314053558.GA30619@codesourcery.com> References: <1299867146-22049-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <1299867146-22049-2-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <20110311183057.GV23686@codesourcery.com> <20110314053558.GA30619@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:15:08 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/7] target-arm: Make Neon helper routines use correct FP status From: Peter Maydell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Nathan Froyd Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, patches@linaro.org On 14 March 2011 05:35, Nathan Froyd wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:31:31PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 11 March 2011 18:30, Nathan Froyd wrote: >> > Is there a reason that you don't simply use the global env rather than >> > passing in an extra parameter everywhere? >> >> Just following the pattern that generally seems to be used by >> most helper functions, ie if you want the CPU env pass it in >> as a parameter. As far as I know, you can't use the global >> env unless you're in op_helper.c because that's the only >> source file compiled with the right flags. > > Oh, right. =C2=A0I am ambivalent as to whether passing env to such functi= ons > is the right thing to do or not. So did this amount to a request for a change to this patchset, or are you happy to let it pass? (I'm planning to stick this patchset into a pull-request with some of the other ARM patches that have had a few weeks for review comment later this week, so if you'd like a change now would be a good time to say so...) thanks -- PMM