On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Paul Brook <p...@codesourcery.com> wrote: >> Fixes two trivial indices errors. > > No. > > You're doing two much in a single patch. While both happen to be bug in the > save/restore code involving arrays, these are not two instances of the same > bug. The justification for each change is completely different.
Sure. So should i resubmit it as 2 patches ? > > Even if each change was obviously correct, I believe putting them together > into a single commit makes the result non-trivial. The fact your patch > introduces a bug strongly suggests it shouldn't have been considered trivial > to start with. > >> @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ void cpu_save(QEMUFile *f, void *opaque) >> if (arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_VFP)) { >> - for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) { >> + for (i = 16; i < 32; i++) { >> CPU_DoubleU u; >> u.d = env->vfp.regs[i]; > > I'm pretty sure this is wrong. > > Paul > Oops, don't know how it got here lol. Bug is in cpu_load not in cpu_save, of course.