On 23 February 2013 10:03, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 22 February 2013 21:15, Paul Brook <p...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>> @@ -100,6 +102,7 @@ struct CPUState {
>>> bool stop;
>>> bool stopped;
>>> volatile sig_atomic_t exit_request;
>>> + volatile sig_atomic_t tcg_exit_req;
>>
>> Do we really need annother variable/check? It seems like this should be at
>> least partially redundant with the existing icount code. I have a simialr
>> patch to that effect.
>
> I wanted to keep the code simple and easy to review for correctness
> and obvious non-interaction with other features.
Also the icount check code does comparatively complicated operations
on the icount which would be awkward to make atomic or otherwise
safe against a signal handler or other thread coming in and
changing something.
-- PMM
