On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 08:50:00PM +0200, Stefan Weil wrote: > Am 13.04.2011 23:05, schrieb Peter Maydell: > >On 13 April 2011 21:38, Stefan Weil <w...@mail.berlios.de> wrote: > >>gen_pc_load was introduced in commit > >>d2856f1ad4c259e5766847c49acbb4e390731bd4. > >>The only reason for parameter searched_pc was > >>a debug statement in target-i386/translate.c. > >> > >>Remove searched_pc from the debug statement > >>and from the parameter list of gen_pc_load. > > > >No issues with the meat of the patch, but if we're going to > >change all the callers and implementations of this anyway, > >is there any appetite for giving it a more appropriate name? > >It doesn't generate any code, it affects more than just the > >pc, and it doesn't do a load... > > > >restore_state_to_opc() ? set_env_for_opc() ? > > > >-- PMM > > > What about cpu_restore_pc()? That's not always the whole truth, > but it's always the main action done in function n.n. which currently > is called gen_pc_load. > > Or cpu_restore_helper()? Helper is very generic - it always fits. > > Aurelien, please feel free to choose a name which suits bests. > I don't mind if you simply patch my patch, create a new one > or tell me which name should go into a new version of the patch > so I can send it. >
As Peter said, the function is doing more than simply restoring the pc. I am fine with the name he proposed, I think restore_state_to_opc() is a bit better. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
