On 09.09.2013 16:08, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 09/09/2013 01:13 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote: >> after carefully reading and testing your patches, this is how I suggest to >> proceed: >> >> first do the implementation of the new functionality (tcg opcodes, jit) in a >> way that is consistent with the existing code. >> No type changes, no refactoring, no beautification. >> >> Once we agree on those, introduce the meaningful restructuring you want to >> do, >> like the new INSN type, the "don't handle mov/movi in tcg_out_op", the >> TCG_OPF_64BIT thing, etc. >> >> Last do the cosmetic stuff if you really want to do it, like the change all >> ext to bool (note that there is no point if the callers still use "1" and >> "0": adapt them as well) etc. > > No, I don't agree. Especially with respect to the insn type. > > I'd much rather do all the "cosmetic stuff", as you put it, first. It makes > all of the "real" changes much easier to understand. > > > r~ >
I guess we are stuck then. With the cosmetic and restructuring stuff coming before, I cannot cherry pick the good parts later.
