From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L6Sef-0003BN-Ss for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:26:50 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L6Sed-0003AS-Nt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:26:48 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40704 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L6Sed-0003AF-G0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:26:47 -0500 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.153]:56379) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L6Sec-0006TJ-4j for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:26:46 -0500 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l26so1278678fgb.8 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 08:26:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 18:26:42 +0200 From: "Blue Swirl" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Some fixes for TCG debugging In-Reply-To: <761ea48b0811290749q19466d09kbf21cd1ff34fb69a@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <761ea48b0811180702r6dce9a44n2bde8e69abf6a5d6@mail.gmail.com> <761ea48b0811200411r41e875fcs15e02e1c58a11a8f@mail.gmail.com> <761ea48b0811290749q19466d09kbf21cd1ff34fb69a@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 11/29/08, Laurent Desnogues wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Laurent Desnogues > > wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Laurent Desnogues > > wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> this fixes a few things after Paul's improvements for TCG debugging: > >> > >> - change TCGv_i64 field name to something different from > >> TCGv_i32 > >> - fix things in tcg that the above change made visible. > > > > No comment about that patch? Except that it lacks this: > > > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Desnogues > > > Still no comment for something that obvious? Looks OK. Anybody mind if I apply this?