Il 27/05/2014 17:49, Sebastian Tanase ha scritto:
Why doesn't it have to update original_low and original_extra, and
why doesn't it have to take into account original_extra (the new
cpu->icount_extra is zero, but what about the old one)?
The reason I don't update original_low and original_extra is because
in this case the function will exit (from what I understood):
You're right. Of course this becomes moot if you move the updating code
to a separate function; otherwise, please add a comment.
You didn't answer the rest of the question---is it right to ignore
original_extra, or was it a bug?
Paolo
