Am 17.04.2011 20:27, schrieb Aurelien Jarno:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 08:50:00PM +0200, Stefan Weil wrote:
Am 13.04.2011 23:05, schrieb Peter Maydell:
On 13 April 2011 21:38, Stefan Weil <w...@mail.berlios.de> wrote:
gen_pc_load was introduced in commit
d2856f1ad4c259e5766847c49acbb4e390731bd4.
The only reason for parameter searched_pc was
a debug statement in target-i386/translate.c.
Remove searched_pc from the debug statement
and from the parameter list of gen_pc_load.
No issues with the meat of the patch, but if we're going to
change all the callers and implementations of this anyway,
is there any appetite for giving it a more appropriate name?
It doesn't generate any code, it affects more than just the
pc, and it doesn't do a load...
restore_state_to_opc() ? set_env_for_opc() ?
-- PMM
What about cpu_restore_pc()? That's not always the whole truth,
but it's always the main action done in function n.n. which currently
is called gen_pc_load.
Or cpu_restore_helper()? Helper is very generic - it always fits.
Aurelien, please feel free to choose a name which suits bests.
I don't mind if you simply patch my patch, create a new one
or tell me which name should go into a new version of the patch
so I can send it.
As Peter said, the function is doing more than simply restoring the
pc. I am fine with the name he proposed, I think restore_state_to_opc()
is a bit better.
Ok, so I'll send a new patch which also replaces gen_pc_load
by restore_state_to_op. The new function name is longer than
the old one, but it was possible to remove one more function
parameter, therefore line lengths don't increase.
avoid over
