Am 28.03.2012 15:40, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> On 26 March 2012 18:28, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote:
>
>> +static void arm_cpu_reset(CPUState *c)
>> +{
>> + ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(c);
>> + ARMCPUClass *class = ARM_CPU_GET_CLASS(cpu);
>> +
>> + class->parent_reset(c);
>
> I thought we were avoiding 'class' in favour of 'klass'?
Max complained about that and no one argued against him, so I avoided it
in the .c file where it's not strictly necessary. It's really only
necessary in the headers. But I don't mind either way.
For me, the convention is cpu_class => CPUClass, so it would be unwise
here, thus one of class, clazz, klass.
>> +static const TypeInfo arm_cpu_type_info = {
>> + .name = TYPE_ARM_CPU,
>> + .parent = TYPE_CPU,
>> + .instance_size = sizeof(ARMCPU),
>> + .abstract = false, /* TODO Reconsider once cp15 reworked. */
>
> As it happens I'm planning to create the per-implementation
> subclasses first and do the cp15 rework second.
Suggest a rephrase? :)
Andreas
--
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
