On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 26/05/2015 19:05, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
>> OK, but it is an odd one out, would you be willing to accept
>> the double include that seems to be widespread?
>>
>> +#include "qemu_common.h"
>> #include "cpu.h"
>> -#include "exec/cpu-
On 26/05/2015 19:05, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
> OK, but it is an odd one out, would you be willing to accept
> the double include that seems to be widespread?
>
> +#include "qemu_common.h"
> #include "cpu.h"
> -#include "exec/cpu-all.h"
This is exactly what I meant. What is odd about it?
In
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:12 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 26/05/2015 08:38, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
>> Rather than an explicit inclusion of cpu.h. This maked it more
>> consistent with other core code files, which either just rely on
>> qemu-common.h inclusion or preceed cpu.h with qemu-comm
On 26/05/2015 08:38, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
> Rather than an explicit inclusion of cpu.h. This maked it more
> consistent with other core code files, which either just rely on
> qemu-common.h inclusion or preceed cpu.h with qemu-common.h anyway.
I'd rather keep the cpu.h inclusion. It would b
Rather than an explicit inclusion of cpu.h. This maked it more
consistent with other core code files, which either just rely on
qemu-common.h inclusion or preceed cpu.h with qemu-common.h anyway.
Signed-off-by: Peter Crosthwaite
---
Picked up by my multi arch WIP where target-multi/cpu.h cant han
