On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:59:01AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 13.03.2014 00:08, schrieb Stuart Brady: > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:15:28AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: > >> Most targets were using offsetof(CPUFooState, breakpoints) to determine > >> how much of CPUFooState to clear on reset. Use the next field after > >> CPU_COMMON instead, if any, or sizeof(CPUFooState) otherwise. > > > > Would it not be easier and more readable to add a field replacing > > 'breakpoints' just for this purpose, at least for the time being? > > > > I'm guessing CPU_COMMON_TLB will be getting cleaned up too at some point > > so is it really worth avoiding the tiny amount of bloat this imposes? > > Given the bad timing and having already done the work for v1, I am > reluctant to change the somewhat tested code unless there is a bug?
No bug — and I've checked carefully. I was just concerned as it seemed a little fragile, but as the timing is bad (I now see that rc1 is due on the 19th) then that seems fair enough. -- Cheers, Stuart
