On 8 March 2013 17:21, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 11:33:01AM +0800, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) wrote: >> In TCG, "target" means the host architecture for which TCG generates the >> code. Using "guest" rather than "target" to make the document more >> consistent.
>> @@ -379,7 +379,7 @@ double-word product T0. The later is returned in two >> single-word outputs. >> >> Similar to mulu2, except the two inputs T1 and T2 are signed. >> >> -********* 64-bit target on 32-bit host support >> +********* 64-bit guest on 32-bit host support >> >> The following opcodes are internal to TCG. Thus they are to be implemented >> by >> 32-bit host code generators, but are not to be emitted by guest translators. > > Review from TCG experts please. > > It seems we have multiple meanings for "target" (e.g. ./configure > --target-list= does not mean "the host architecture for which TCG > generates code"), if this is really the way TCG uses the term then fine. Yes, this is an unfortunate terminology clash, but in a TCG context 'target' does mean 'host architecture which the backend compiles for' (see the tcg/README definition in section 2). This is partly because of TCG's history as a C compiler backend, where 'target' is unambiguous and may be different from the 'host' architecture the compiler itself executes on. There are several places in tcg/README which use 'target' in the sense 'QEMU target, ie guest' (as well as lots of uses in the 'TCG target, ie host' sense), not just this one; it might be a good idea to put a note in the Definitions section that this document uses 'guest' when it means what in other areas of QEMU is often referred to as the 'target', and fix the places where we've accidentally used 'target' and 'guest would be better. -- PMM
