Am 22.02.2012 12:26, schrieb Peter Maydell: > So if we apply patches 1-3 (which all look plausible) then the only > remaining user of VMSTATE_UINTTL is target-i386/machine.c as far as > I can see. > > This leaves me wondering if we shouldn't just put it actually in > target-i386/machine.c as a convenience macro for that specific CPU > to avoid having to have more #ifdef TARGET_X86_64s.
Nack. I don't see the connection between target_ulong and TARGET_X86_64. Just because that becomes the only user does not mean target_ulong is an x86-specific concept. > (I note that > the machine.c code is already pretty inconsistent, eg lstar and > cstar are defined as target_ulong and saved with VMSTATE_UINT64.) Same for TCGv. We also have quite a few mixes of int and (U)INT32. Andreas > > Basically VMSTATE_UINTTL seems like a bit of a dangerous thing to > leave lying around as there aren't really very many use cases > for it... -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
