On 10/19/2012 09:53 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Evgeny <e.voevo...@samsung.com> wrote:
Signed-off-by: Evgeny <e.voevo...@samsung.com>
---
tcg/tcg.c | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tcg/tcg.c b/tcg/tcg.c
index 3da1d83..77b15a0 100644
--- a/tcg/tcg.c
+++ b/tcg/tcg.c
@@ -302,7 +302,7 @@ void tcg_func_start(TCGContext *s)
#endif
s->gen_opc_ptr = s->gen_opc_buf;
- s->gen_opparam_ptr = gen_opparam_buf;
+ s->gen_opparam_ptr = s->gen_opparam_buf;
}
static inline void tcg_temp_alloc(TCGContext *s, int n)
@@ -889,7 +889,7 @@ void tcg_dump_ops(TCGContext *s)
first_insn = 1;
opc_ptr = s->gen_opc_buf;
- args = gen_opparam_buf;
+ args = s->gen_opparam_buf;
while (opc_ptr < s->gen_opc_ptr) {
c = *opc_ptr++;
def = &tcg_op_defs[c];
@@ -1413,7 +1413,7 @@ static void tcg_liveness_analysis(TCGContext *s)
op_index--;
}
- if (args != gen_opparam_buf)
+ if (args != s->gen_opparam_buf)
Please add braces.
Ok.
Maybe I should introduce a little code clean-up in the scope of my patches?
I mean, remove tabs and so on... Then maybe it would better be a
separate patch?
tcg_abort();
}
#else
@@ -2108,7 +2108,7 @@ static inline int tcg_gen_code_common(TCGContext *s,
uint8_t *gen_code_buf,
#ifdef USE_TCG_OPTIMIZATIONS
s->gen_opparam_ptr =
- tcg_optimize(s, s->gen_opc_ptr, gen_opparam_buf, tcg_op_defs);
+ tcg_optimize(s, s->gen_opc_ptr, s->gen_opparam_buf, tcg_op_defs);
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_PROFILER
@@ -2135,7 +2135,7 @@ static inline int tcg_gen_code_common(TCGContext *s,
uint8_t *gen_code_buf,
s->code_buf = gen_code_buf;
s->code_ptr = gen_code_buf;
- args = gen_opparam_buf;
+ args = s->gen_opparam_buf;
op_index = 0;
for(;;) {
--
1.7.9.5
--
Kind regards,
Evgeny Voevodin,
Technical Leader,
Mobile Group,
Samsung Moscow Research Center,
e-mail: e.voevo...@samsung.com