On 22 July 2013 12:17, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: > Am 22.07.2013 12:40, schrieb Peter Maydell: >> Yep; my view is that the acceptance of the -or32-cpu varieties >> was a bug which we have now fixed. In any case we should be >> consistent across target architectures about what we allow. >> I'm happy with the approach Jia has taken of just dropping >> this patch in v4 of this series. > > alpha allows both, but -cpu ? just gave me a segfault. :/
Odd; that works for me: cam-vm-266:precise:qemu$ ./build/x86-all/alpha-softmmu/qemu-system-alpha -cpu ? Available CPUs: ev4-alpha-cpu ev5-alpha-cpu ev56-alpha-cpu ev6-alpha-cpu ev67-alpha-cpu ev68-alpha-cpu pca56-alpha-cpu > It didn't have -cpu ? before QOM, so we decided to print the type names > there. Looking at all of the '-cpu help' output, alpha seems to be the odd one out here: none of the others list valid CPUs with "-$arch-cpu" suffixes. > Stripping -alpha-cpu off typenames would surely be possible. I think that that would be better in the name of consistency. Also regarding consistency, not all targets react very well to being asked for a nonexistent cpu via "-cpu xyzzy": alpha and s390x just plough on without an error lm32 and unicore32 segfault (some of this may be default board model bugs rather than target-* bugs). -- PMM
