From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:38852) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QYlwU-00068Z-8D for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:23:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QYlwS-0001sA-8A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:23:33 -0400 Received: from mail-qy0-f180.google.com ([209.85.216.180]:63111) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QYlwR-0001rd-Gz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:23:31 -0400 Received: by qyk30 with SMTP id 30so1676532qyk.4 for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:23:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: From: Blue Swirl Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 00:23:10 +0300 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 14/18] TCG/PPC: use TCG_REG_CALL_STACK instead of TCG_REG_R1 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: malc Cc: qemu-devel On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:14 AM, malc wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Blue Swirl wrote: > >> Use TCG_REG_CALL_STACK instead of TCG_REG_R1 etc. for consistency. > > You spell it TCG_REG_CALL_STACK in the subject/comment but > REG_CALL_STACK in the patch, which suggest that it was never > even compile tested. Actually I seem to have used both versions. I didn't compile test, but to make matters even worse, I didn't even read any reference manuals or ABI descriptions for any of these patches but based all this on bits gathered from */tcg-target.[ch]. But is the patch otherwise OK? ;-)