Thanks, applied.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:02 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> This is a re-working of Paolo's eflags cleanup from October, which
> I consider a pre-requisite to implementing the ADX extension. I've
> rearranged most of the patches in trivial ways, and some quite
> significantly.
>
> Checkpatch doesn't work well with the pattern
>
> #ifdef SOMETHING
> if (foo) {
> bar();
> } else
> #endif
> {
> baz1();
> baz2();
> }
>
> Which is exactly the case for all three errors reported in this series.
> I know of no other good way to arrange this
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 01/24/2013 08:57 AM, Laurent Desnogues wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Richard Henderson
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2013-01-24 08:46, Laurent Desnogues wrote:
I gave a quick try a your branch. My host is an x86_
On 01/25/2013 11:40 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 2013-01-25 10:16, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> >Which is exactly the case for all three errors reported in this series.
>>> >I know of no other good way to arrange this pattern.
>> #ifdef SOMETHING
>> # define SOMETHING_WITNESS 1
>> #else
>> # define S
On 2013-01-25 10:16, Eric Blake wrote:
>Which is exactly the case for all three errors reported in this series.
>I know of no other good way to arrange this pattern.
#ifdef SOMETHING
# define SOMETHING_WITNESS 1
#else
# define SOMETHING_WITNESS 0
#endif
if (foo && SOMETHING_WITNESS) {
bar(
On 01/25/2013 11:10 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Checkpatch doesn't work well with the pattern
>
> #ifdef SOMETHING
> if (foo) {
> bar();
> } else
> #endif
> {
> baz1();
> baz2();
> }
>
> Which is exactly the case for all three errors reported in this se
On 2013-01-25 06:18, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Hi,
Thank you for submitting your patch series. checkpatch.pl has
detected that one or more of the patches in this series violate
the QEMU coding style.
If you believe this message was sent in error, please ignore it
or respond here with an explanati
Hi,
Thank you for submitting your patch series. checkpatch.pl has
detected that one or more of the patches in this series violate
the QEMU coding style.
If you believe this message was sent in error, please ignore it
or respond here with an explanation.
Otherwise, please correct the coding styl
On 01/24/2013 08:57 AM, Laurent Desnogues wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 2013-01-24 08:46, Laurent Desnogues wrote:
I gave a quick try a your branch. My host is an x86_64 CPU and I
ran an i386 nbench in user mode. It works but some parts of the
benchmark
Am 24.01.2013 17:17, schrieb Richard Henderson:
> On 2013-01-24 01:35, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 24.01.2013 05:02, schrieb Richard Henderson:
>>> target-i386/cpu.c | 18 +-
>>> target-i386/cpu.h | 24 +-
>>
>> You forgot to CC me: Please point me to where
On 2013-01-24 08:46, Laurent Desnogues wrote:
I gave a quick try a your branch. My host is an x86_64 CPU and I
ran an i386 nbench in user mode. It works but some parts of the
benchmark are noticeably slower (>10%). Is that expected?
Nope. Everything in there should be about speeding up...
I
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> This is a re-working of Paolo's eflags cleanup from October, which
> I consider a pre-requisite to implementing the ADX extension. I've
> rearranged most of the patches in trivial ways, and some quite
> significantly.
>
> I've tested the
On 2013-01-24 01:35, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 24.01.2013 05:02, schrieb Richard Henderson:
target-i386/cpu.c | 18 +-
target-i386/cpu.h | 24 +-
You forgot to CC me: Please point me to where in those 57 patches you
are touching the core CPU code.
cpu
Am 24.01.2013 05:02, schrieb Richard Henderson:
> target-i386/cpu.c | 18 +-
> target-i386/cpu.h | 24 +-
You forgot to CC me: Please point me to where in those 57 patches you
are touching the core CPU code.
Given the size of the series I assume this is 1.5
This is a re-working of Paolo's eflags cleanup from October, which
I consider a pre-requisite to implementing the ADX extension. I've
rearranged most of the patches in trivial ways, and some quite
significantly.
I've tested the result by running the FC17 installer in both i386
and x86_64 mode, an
15 matches
Mail list logo
