On Wed Oct 16, 2024 at 11:15 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.10.2024 12:06, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> > On Wed Oct 16, 2024 at 8:45 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> For some reason I entirely consistently screwed these up.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Alejandro V
On 16.10.2024 12:06, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> On Wed Oct 16, 2024 at 8:45 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> For some reason I entirely consistently screwed these up.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>
> Reviewed-by: Alejandro Vallejo
Thanks.
> We should really give another push to the clang-fo
On Wed Oct 16, 2024 at 8:45 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote:
> For some reason I entirely consistently screwed these up.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
Reviewed-by: Alejandro Vallejo
We should really give another push to the clang-format effort. This whole class
of mistakes would be a thing of the
For some reason I entirely consistently screwed these up.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
--- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/evex-disp8.c
+++ b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/evex-disp8.c
@@ -905,8 +905,8 @@ static void test_one(const struct test *
goto fail;
for ( i = 0; i < (test->scale == SC