Re: [PATCH 15/16] system/memory: make compilation unit common

[Pierrick Bouvier <pierrick.bouvier@linaro.org>]

On 3/10/25 10:58, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 3/10/25 10:47, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
>>> Maybe better as
>>>
>>>        MemOp mop = (target_words_bigendian() ? MO_BE : MO_LE) | size_memop(size);
>>>        adjust_endianness(mr, &mrfd.data, size_memop(size), mop);
>>>
>>
>> Do you think defining MO_TE as this expression is a good idea?
> 
> There are not so many references to MO_TE outside target/ or accel/tcg/.
> 
> Indeed, after this change, the only ones left are in hw/arm/armv7m.c,
> which (because it's Arm) can be changed to MO_LE.
> 

I see a bit more than that (17 files):
hw/arm/armv7m.c
include/exec/memop.h
target/arm/tcg/helper-a64.c
target/arm/tcg/translate.c
target/hexagon/idef-parser/parser-helpers.c
target/hppa/translate.c
target/i386/tcg/emit.c.inc
target/loongarch/tcg/insn_trans/trans_vec.c.inc
target/m68k/translate.c
target/mips/tcg/mips16e_translate.c.inc
target/riscv/translate.c
target/rx/translate.c
target/s390x/tcg/mem_helper.c
target/s390x/tcg/translate.c
target/s390x/tcg/translate_vx.c.inc
target/sparc/ldst_helper.c
target/sparc/translate.c

Plus more (22 files) who relies on:
MO_TE* variants (which relies on MO_TE transitively)

Thus my proposal to have a first change to MO_TE definition, and 
eventually do the change later.

What do you think?

> 
> r~