On 17 April 2011 22:07, Stefan Weil <w...@mail.berlios.de> wrote: > 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.
That's _to_opc, not _to_op : I was trying to be consistent with the naming of the gen_opc_* arrays. -- PMM
