Am 28.04.2012 13:48, schrieb Blue Swirl: > On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 15:35, Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> wrote: >> diff --git a/cputlb.c b/cputlb.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..b7d8f07 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/cputlb.c [...] >> +void tlb_reset_dirty_range(CPUTLBEntry *tlb_entry, uintptr_t start, >> + uintptr_t length) > > This... > >> +{ >> + uintptr_t addr; >> + >> + if (tlb_is_dirty_ram(tlb_entry)) { >> + addr = (tlb_entry->addr_write & TARGET_PAGE_MASK) + >> tlb_entry->addend; >> + if ((addr - start) < length) { >> + tlb_entry->addr_write |= TLB_NOTDIRTY; >> + } >> + } >> +} [...] >> diff --git a/cputlb.h b/cputlb.h >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..d16c22e >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/cputlb.h [...] >> +void tlb_reset_dirty_range(CPUTLBEntry *tlb_entry, unsigned long start, >> + unsigned long length); > > ... doesn't match this prototype, so build would fail on win32. > > Maybe this is 1.2 material anyway.
Personally I'd like to have those big code movements sorted out earlier than later (including any outstanding AREG0 refactorings) due to my CPUArchState -> CPUState consolidation work. So if you and Richard are happy with the code changes except for this mismatch then I can check both mingw cross builds if you name a branch. But I'd also be fine with a semiofficial "next" branch for 1.2. Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg