On 8/15/19 6:19 AM, Aleksandar Markovic wrote: > > 15.08.2019. 11.55, "Richard Henderson" <richard.hender...@linaro.org > <mailto:richard.hender...@linaro.org>> је написао/ла: >> >> On 8/15/19 8:30 AM, Aleksandar Markovic wrote: >> > >> > 15.08.2019. 04.13, "Jan Bobek" <jan.bo...@gmail.com >> > <mailto:jan.bo...@gmail.com> >> > <mailto:jan.bo...@gmail.com <mailto:jan.bo...@gmail.com>>> је написао/ла: >> >> >> >> From: Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net <mailto:r...@twiddle.net> >> >> <mailto:r...@twiddle.net <mailto:r...@twiddle.net>>> >> >> >> >> Treat this the same as we already do for other rex bits. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net >> >> <mailto:r...@twiddle.net> <mailto:r...@twiddle.net >> >> <mailto:r...@twiddle.net>>> >> >> --- >> >> target/i386/translate.c | 19 +++++++++++-------- >> >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/target/i386/translate.c b/target/i386/translate.c >> >> index d74dbfd585..c0866c2797 100644 >> >> --- a/target/i386/translate.c >> >> +++ b/target/i386/translate.c >> >> @@ -44,11 +44,13 @@ >> >> #define REX_X(s) ((s)->rex_x) >> >> #define REX_B(s) ((s)->rex_b) >> >> #define REX_R(s) ((s)->rex_r) >> >> +#define REX_W(s) ((s)->rex_w) >> >> #else >> >> #define CODE64(s) 0 >> >> #define REX_X(s) 0 >> >> #define REX_B(s) 0 >> >> #define REX_R(s) 0 >> >> +#define REX_W(s) -1 >> > >> > The commit message says "treat rex_w the same as other rex bits". Why is >> > then >> > REX_W() treated differently here? >> >> "Treated the same" in terms of being referenced by a macro instead of a local >> variable. As for the -1, if you look at the rest of the patch you can >> clearly >> see it preserves existing behaviour. >> > > That is exactly what I dislike about your commit messages: they often > introduce ambiguity, without any real need, and with really bad consequences > to the reader. Is adding "in terms of being referenced by a macro instead of > a local > variable" to the commit message that hard? > > When writing commit messages, you need to try to put yourself in the shoes of > the reader.
FWIW, personally I don't find it confusing. I think even just the first couple of lines of the patch make it quite clear what's going on. Just my 2 cents. -Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
