On 9/11/19 6:55 AM, Tony Nguyen wrote:
>> typedef uint64_t FullLoadHelper(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr,
>> TCGMemOpIdx oi, uintptr_t retaddr);
>> +typedef uint64_t DirectLoadHelper(const void *);
>
> Would 'Load' instead of 'DirectLoadHelper' have enough clarity?
I suppose so, yes.
> If so, consider also dropping the 'direct_' prefix in the functions below.
>
>> +
>> +static inline uint64_t direct_ldub(const void *haddr)
>> +{
>> + return *(uint8_t *)haddr;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline uint64_t direct_lduw_be(const void *haddr)
>> +{
>> + return lduw_be_p(haddr);
>> +}
I would be hesitant to call this just "lduw_be"; I think that's confusing when
it's calling lduw_be_p. But perhaps "wrap_*" or "wide_*"?
r~
