>>> On 10.02.17 at 18:13, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 01/02/17 11:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> +static const struct {
>> + opcode_desc_t desc;
>> +} twobyte_table[256] = {
>> + [0x00] = { ModRM },
>
> This is definitely an improvement in readability, so Acked-by: Andrew
> Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> (I have briefly checked that
> everything appears to be the same, but not checked thoroughly)
Thanks.
> I had a plan to do this anyway, including the onebyte table, and adding
> instruction/group comments like the case statements for emulation. Is
> that something you can introduce in your series, or shall I wait and
> retrofit a patch later?
Flattening the onebyte table was certainly an intention of mine too,
but with no specific plans time wise. Getting the additions taken care
of is proving time consuming enough for the moment. As to adding
comments, though: I had specifically considered this (for the twobyte
table) and considered it a bad idea, as it'll significantly clutter the
table, and be particularly unhelpful for table entries covering multiple
opcodes at once).
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
