On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Blue Swirl wrote: > On 1/2/08, Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Also the opaque parameter may need to be different for each function, > > > it just didn't matter for the unassigned memory case. > > > > Do you really have systems where independent devices need to respond to > > different sized accesses to the same address? > > I don't think so. But one day unassigned or even normal RAM memory > access may need an opaque parameter, so passing the device's opaque to > unassigned memory handler is wrong.
I'm not convinced. Your current implementation seems to introduce an extra level of indirection without any plausible benefit. If you're treating unassigned memory differently it needs to be handled much earlier that so you can raise CPU exceptions. Paul
