On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 11:44:01AM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On 9/24/19 6:59 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> > Currently TYPE_XICS_BASE and TYPE_XICS_SIMPLE have their own reset and
> > realize methods, using the standard technique for having the subtype
> > call the supertype
Hi David,
On 9/24/19 6:59 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> Currently TYPE_XICS_BASE and TYPE_XICS_SIMPLE have their own reset and
> realize methods, using the standard technique for having the subtype
> call the supertype's methods before doing its own thing.
>
> But TYPE_XICS_SIMPLE is the only subtype
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 14:59:50 +1000
David Gibson wrote:
> Currently TYPE_XICS_BASE and TYPE_XICS_SIMPLE have their own reset and
> realize methods, using the standard technique for having the subtype
> call the supertype's methods before doing its own thing.
>
> But TYPE_XICS_SIMPLE is the only s
On 24/09/2019 06:59, David Gibson wrote:
> Currently TYPE_XICS_BASE and TYPE_XICS_SIMPLE have their own reset and
> realize methods, using the standard technique for having the subtype
> call the supertype's methods before doing its own thing.
>
> But TYPE_XICS_SIMPLE is the only subtype of TYPE_X
Currently TYPE_XICS_BASE and TYPE_XICS_SIMPLE have their own reset and
realize methods, using the standard technique for having the subtype
call the supertype's methods before doing its own thing.
But TYPE_XICS_SIMPLE is the only subtype of TYPE_XICS_BASE ever
instantiated, so there's no point hav
