On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 04:22:01PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 24.04.2013 09:40, schrieb li guang: > > 在 2013-04-24三的 08:36 +0100,Peter Maydell写道: > >> On 24 April 2013 08:32, li guang <lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > >>> I think even others want to use something like you said, > >>> it should not 'cs_base', or, it's a bad name. > >> > >> Yes, this is why I said "has a less than helpful name". > >> > >>>> > >>>>>>> --- a/target-sparc/cpu.h > >>>>>>> +++ b/target-sparc/cpu.h > >>>>>>> @@ -715,7 +715,7 @@ trap_state* cpu_tsptr(CPUSPARCState* env); > >>>>>>> #define TB_FLAG_AM_ENABLED (1 << 5) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> static inline void cpu_get_tb_cpu_state(CPUSPARCState *env, > >>>>>>> target_ulong *pc, > >>>>>>> - target_ulong *cs_base, int > >>>>>>> *flags) > >>>>>>> + int *flags) > >>>>>>> { > >>>>>>> *pc = env->pc; > >>>>>>> *cs_base = env->npc; > >> > >>>> You clearly have a problem with your compile and test > >>>> process then, because it is clear from the patch that > >>>> you've removed the cs_base argument from this function > >>>> but the function still has a use of 'cs_base' in it. > >>> > >>> ???, sorry, where do I miss 'cs_base' removing? > >> > >> Last quoted line of source: "*cs_base = env->npc". > > > > OK, thanks! > > that remove by overshoot script! > > Some general reminders: > > We're in Soft Freeze, so in general no new big patch series will go into > 1.5 unless there's a maintainer willing to take care of it - for i386 > there is none, and random code cleanups do not look like something we > must absolutely have in the release last minute. At least no one brought > up on yesterday's call that this is a must-have, so maybe after the > release would be a better time to let people review this? >
Being in soft or hard freeze should not prevent people to send patches, and nothing here says that they should be included in 1.5. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net