Claudio Fontana writes:
> Clearly late to the party,
> On 08.04.2016 22:14, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>> On 08/04/2016 15:15, Markus Armbruster wrote:
On the other hand, minimal usage of templates instead of some of the
preprocessor gunk we have would be a very good thing IMNSHO. I am
Clearly late to the party,
On 08.04.2016 22:14, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 08/04/2016 15:15, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> On the other hand, minimal usage of templates instead of some of the
>>> preprocessor gunk we have would be a very good thing IMNSHO. I am
>>> referring to the multiply
On 08/04/2016 15:15, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > On the other hand, minimal usage of templates instead of some of the
> > preprocessor gunk we have would be a very good thing IMNSHO. I am
> > referring to the multiply included header files and to the macros with
> > type arguments (mostly QOM
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 07/04/2016 16:49, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> > QOM to C++ classes
>> I suspect if you looked at this you'd find that the QOM semantics
>> for various things don't map onto C++ (ie that we have more runtime
>> flexibility than C++ does).
>
> True, but
On 07/04/2016 16:49, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > QOM to C++ classes
> I suspect if you looked at this you'd find that the QOM semantics
> for various things don't map onto C++ (ie that we have more runtime
> flexibility than C++ does).
True, but you don't have to use it. :) If your code is
On 3 April 2016 at 14:05, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
> QOM to C++ classes
I suspect if you looked at this you'd find that the QOM semantics
for various things don't map onto C++ (ie that we have more runtime
flexibility than C++ does). This is just vaguely remembered from
Lluís Vilanova writes:
> Markus Armbruster writes:
>
>> Peter Maydell writes:
>> [...]
>>> if we move away from C I'd rather
>>> it to be a language that's nicer than C rather than one that's
>>> uglier and larger and still retains all of C's
Markus Armbruster writes:
> Peter Maydell writes:
> [...]
>> if we move away from C I'd rather
>> it to be a language that's nicer than C rather than one that's
>> uglier and larger and still retains all of C's flaws.
> Seconded strongly.
Just curious. Do we agree
KONRAD Frederic writes:
> Hi,
> Le 09/03/2016 16:52, Richard Henderson a écrit :
>> On 03/09/2016 09:38 AM, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> NOTE: I won't be throwing patches anytime soon, I just want to know if
>>> there's
>>> interest in this for the future.
>>>
>>> While adding events
On 14/03/2016 13:23, KONRAD Frederic wrote:
>> These "target-specific hooks" probably ought not be "hooks" in the
>> traditional sense of attaching them to CPUState. I'd be more
>> comfortable with a refactoring that used include files -- maybe .h or
>> maybe .inc.c. If we do the normal sort
Hi,
Le 09/03/2016 16:52, Richard Henderson a écrit :
On 03/09/2016 09:38 AM, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
Hi,
NOTE: I won't be throwing patches anytime soon, I just want to know
if there's
interest in this for the future.
While adding events for tracing guest instructions, I've found that
Markus Armbruster writes:
> Peter Maydell writes:
> [...]
>> if we move away from C I'd rather
>> it to be a language that's nicer than C rather than one that's
>> uglier and larger and still retains all of C's flaws.
> Seconded strongly.
I don't feel like that about
Peter Maydell writes:
[...]
> if we move away from C I'd rather
> it to be a language that's nicer than C rather than one that's
> uglier and larger and still retains all of C's flaws.
Seconded strongly.
On 13 March 2016 at 13:16, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
> Peter Maydell writes:
>> I would be more interested in a proposal to move parts of QEMU
>> to Rust, or just about anything else except C++...
>
> QEMU is pretty low-level, so I'm not sure other languages will fit the bill as
Peter Maydell writes:
> On 10 March 2016 at 05:29, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
>> Richard Henderson writes:
>>> Alternately... can we broach the subject of C++? Honestly, it
>>> seems we work too hard sometimes to re-implement templates and
>>> classes in C.
>>
>> Whooo, I'd
On 10 March 2016 at 05:29, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
> Richard Henderson writes:
>> Alternately... can we broach the subject of C++? Honestly, it
>> seems we work too hard sometimes to re-implement templates and
>> classes in C.
>
> Whooo, I'd really *love* to switch to C++ just
Richard Henderson writes:
> On 03/09/2016 01:16 PM, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
>> Richard Henderson writes:
>>
>>> On 03/09/2016 09:38 AM, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
Hi,
NOTE: I won't be throwing patches anytime soon, I just want to know if
there's
interest in this for the
On 03/09/2016 01:16 PM, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
Richard Henderson writes:
On 03/09/2016 09:38 AM, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
Hi,
NOTE: I won't be throwing patches anytime soon, I just want to know if there's
interest in this for the future.
While adding events for tracing guest instructions, I've
Richard Henderson writes:
> On 03/09/2016 09:38 AM, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> NOTE: I won't be throwing patches anytime soon, I just want to know if
>> there's
>> interest in this for the future.
>>
>> While adding events for tracing guest instructions, I've found that the
>>
On 03/09/2016 09:38 AM, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
Hi,
NOTE: I won't be throwing patches anytime soon, I just want to know if there's
interest in this for the future.
While adding events for tracing guest instructions, I've found that the
per-target "gen_intermediate_code()" function is very
Hi,
NOTE: I won't be throwing patches anytime soon, I just want to know if there's
interest in this for the future.
While adding events for tracing guest instructions, I've found that the
per-target "gen_intermediate_code()" function is very similar but not exactly
the same for each of the
21 matches
Mail list logo