On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 09:20:19PM +, Blue Swirl wrote:
Refactor common code around calls to cpu_restore_state().
tb_find_pc() has now no external users, make it static.
Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com
---
exec-all.h|6 ++
hw/kvmvapic.c
Am 04.12.2012 22:20, schrieb Blue Swirl:
Refactor common code around calls to cpu_restore_state().
tb_find_pc() has now no external users, make it static.
Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com
Would've been nice to get CC'ed on the refactoring of a cpu_* function...
I've reviewed
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Andreas Färber afaer...@suse.de wrote:
Am 04.12.2012 22:20, schrieb Blue Swirl:
Refactor common code around calls to cpu_restore_state().
tb_find_pc() has now no external users, make it static.
Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com
Would've been
On 4 December 2012 21:20, Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com wrote:
diff --git a/target-arm/op_helper.c b/target-arm/op_helper.c
index 6e3ab90..1fcc975 100644
--- a/target-arm/op_helper.c
+++ b/target-arm/op_helper.c
@@ -74,19 +74,13 @@ uint32_t HELPER(neon_tbl)(CPUARMState *env, uint32_t
On 2012-12-04 15:25, Peter Maydell wrote:
So this is just a refactoring, but it prompts me to ask -- how does
this work if the PC that caused us to take this TLB fill is legitimately
zero? We seem to be overloading retaddr==0 as a not a real cpu fault
indicator...
Since this is a host code
On 4 December 2012 21:39, Richard Henderson r...@twiddle.net wrote:
On 2012-12-04 15:25, Peter Maydell wrote:
So this is just a refactoring, but it prompts me to ask -- how does
this work if the PC that caused us to take this TLB fill is legitimately
zero? We seem to be overloading retaddr==0
Refactor common code around calls to cpu_restore_state().
tb_find_pc() has now no external users, make it static.
Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com
---
exec-all.h|6 ++
hw/kvmvapic.c |4 +---
target-alpha/helper.c | 14
