On 18/02/16 11:51, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 2 February 2016 at 10:49, Leon Alrae wrote:
>> On 25/01/16 17:40, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> The r4k_tlb_t structure uses the uint_fast*_t types. Most of these
>>> uses are in bitfields and are thus pointless, because the bitfield
On 2 February 2016 at 10:49, Leon Alrae wrote:
> On 25/01/16 17:40, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> The r4k_tlb_t structure uses the uint_fast*_t types. Most of these
>> uses are in bitfields and are thus pointless, because the bitfield
>> itself specifies the width of the type;
On 25/01/16 17:40, Peter Maydell wrote:
> The r4k_tlb_t structure uses the uint_fast*_t types. Most of these
> uses are in bitfields and are thus pointless, because the bitfield
> itself specifies the width of the type; just use 'unsigned int'
> instead. (On glibc uint_fast16_t is defined as
On 2016-01-25 17:40, Peter Maydell wrote:
> The r4k_tlb_t structure uses the uint_fast*_t types. Most of these
> uses are in bitfields and are thus pointless, because the bitfield
> itself specifies the width of the type; just use 'unsigned int'
> instead. (On glibc uint_fast16_t is defined as
The r4k_tlb_t structure uses the uint_fast*_t types. Most of these
uses are in bitfields and are thus pointless, because the bitfield
itself specifies the width of the type; just use 'unsigned int'
instead. (On glibc uint_fast16_t is defined as either 32 or 64 bits,
so we know the code is not