Hi, On 1/10/22 21:00, gaosong wrote:
Hi, On 2022/1/9 下午5:25, WANG Xuerui wrote:Nit: "Instruction Non-Existent" (or is there any authoritative source for this spelling? the English translation of the manual?)+ +const char * const fregnames[32] = { + "f0", "f1", "f2", "f3", "f4", "f5", "f6", "f7", + "f8", "f9", "f10", "f11", "f12", "f13", "f14", "f15", + "f16", "f17", "f18", "f19", "f20", "f21", "f22", "f23", + "f24", "f25", "f26", "f27", "f28", "f29", "f30", "f31", +}; + +static const char * const excp_names[EXCP_LAST + 1] = { + [EXCP_SYSCALL] = "Syscall", + [EXCP_BREAK] = "Break", + [EXCP_INE] = "Instruction Non-existent",I must admit that your English is really good, But 'Instruction Non-existent' is what you pointed out in v7. I have a history [1], [1]https://patchew.org/QEMU/1634561247-25499-1-git-send-email-gaos...@loongson.cn/1634561247-25499-3-git-send-email-gaos...@loongson.cn/ > +static const char * const excp_names[EXCP_LAST + 1] = { > + [EXCP_ADE] = "Address error", > + [EXCP_SYSCALL] = "Syscall", > + [EXCP_BREAK] = "Break", > + [EXCP_INE] = "Inst. Not Exist", Nit: "Instruction Non-existent", no need to shorten "instruction" like this IMO; no other similar usages exist so this would not be consistent. In any case thank you for your other suggestions.
Well, I do make my mistakes sometimes, and I'll explain a bit: in the former review what I noticed was the broken English, and I pointed that out, but meanwhile I've forgotten I had done that, and why I didn't write "Non-Existent" was because the "Address error" wasn't in full Title Case. However, in this revision, what I noticed is the inconsistent casing (with EXCP_ADE removed, all other strings are in Title Case now), hence the reply.
No need to go full self-defense over this; I think what matters after all is just consistency.
Thanks Song
