Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Remove unneeded function parameter from gen_pc_load

[Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>]

On 17 April 2011 22:07, Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de> wrote:
> Am 17.04.2011 20:27, schrieb Aurelien Jarno:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 08:50:00PM +0200, Stefan Weil wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 13.04.2011 23:05, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>>>>
>>>> On 13 April 2011 21:38, Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> gen_pc_load was introduced in commit
>>>>> d2856f1ad4c259e5766847c49acbb4e390731bd4.
>>>>> The only reason for parameter searched_pc was
>>>>> a debug statement in target-i386/translate.c.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remove searched_pc from the debug statement
>>>>> and from the parameter list of gen_pc_load.
>>>>
>>>> No issues with the meat of the patch, but if we're going to
>>>> change all the callers and implementations of this anyway,
>>>> is there any appetite for giving it a more appropriate name?
>>>> It doesn't generate any code, it affects more than just the
>>>> pc, and it doesn't do a load...
>>>>
>>>> restore_state_to_opc() ? set_env_for_opc() ?
>>>>
>>>> -- PMM
>>>
>>>
>>> What about cpu_restore_pc()? That's not always the whole truth,
>>> but it's always the main action done in function n.n. which currently
>>> is called gen_pc_load.
>>>
>>> Or cpu_restore_helper()? Helper is very generic - it always fits.
>>>
>>> Aurelien, please feel free to choose a name which suits bests.
>>> I don't mind if you simply patch my patch, create a new one
>>> or tell me which name should go into a new version of the patch
>>> so I can send it.
>>>
>>
>> As Peter said, the function is doing more than simply restoring the
>> pc. I am fine with the name he proposed, I think restore_state_to_opc()
>> is a bit better.
>
> Ok, so I'll send a new patch which also replaces gen_pc_load
> by restore_state_to_op.

That's _to_opc, not _to_op : I was trying to be consistent with
the naming of the gen_opc_* arrays.

-- PMM