Am 10.05.2013 18:20, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> On 10 May 2013 17:14, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Personally I wouldn't oppose dropping these checks for release builds as
>> proposed by Paolo in his series; for me, the value of POWERPC_CPU() is
>> being closer to an OO cast than any container_of()-styl
On 10 May 2013 17:14, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Personally I wouldn't oppose dropping these checks for release builds as
> proposed by Paolo in his series; for me, the value of POWERPC_CPU() is
> being closer to an OO cast than any container_of()-style expressions.
>
> But I can also see Anthony's p
Am 10.05.2013 17:32, schrieb Alexander Graf:
>
> On 10.05.2013, at 17:23, Andreas Färber wrote:
>
>> Am 10.05.2013 17:06, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>>> Andreas Färber writes:
>>>
A transition from CPUPPCState to PowerPCCPU can be considered safe,
just like PowerPCCPU::env access in the
[resending after bounce]
Am 10.05.2013 17:06, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> Andreas Färber writes:
>
>> A transition from CPUPPCState to PowerPCCPU can be considered safe,
>> just like PowerPCCPU::env access in the opposite direction.
>>
>> This should slightly improve interrupt performance.
>>
>>
Il 10/05/2013 17:06, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
> Andreas Färber writes:
>
>> A transition from CPUPPCState to PowerPCCPU can be considered safe,
>> just like PowerPCCPU::env access in the opposite direction.
>>
>> This should slightly improve interrupt performance.
>>
>> Reported-by: Anthony Li
Il 10/05/2013 16:47, Andreas Färber ha scritto:
> Am 10.05.2013 16:42, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>> On 10 May 2013 15:39, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>> A transition from CPUPPCState to PowerPCCPU can be considered safe,
>>> just like PowerPCCPU::env access in the opposite direction.
>>>
>>> This should s
Andreas Färber writes:
> A transition from CPUPPCState to PowerPCCPU can be considered safe,
> just like PowerPCCPU::env access in the opposite direction.
>
> This should slightly improve interrupt performance.
>
> Reported-by: Anthony Liguori
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber
Another option wou
Peter Maydell writes:
> On 10 May 2013 15:39, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> A transition from CPUPPCState to PowerPCCPU can be considered safe,
>> just like PowerPCCPU::env access in the opposite direction.
>>
>> This should slightly improve interrupt performance.
>
>> static inline PowerPCCPU *ppc_
Am 10.05.2013 16:42, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> On 10 May 2013 15:39, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> A transition from CPUPPCState to PowerPCCPU can be considered safe,
>> just like PowerPCCPU::env access in the opposite direction.
>>
>> This should slightly improve interrupt performance.
>
>> static in
On 10 May 2013 15:39, Andreas Färber wrote:
> A transition from CPUPPCState to PowerPCCPU can be considered safe,
> just like PowerPCCPU::env access in the opposite direction.
>
> This should slightly improve interrupt performance.
> static inline PowerPCCPU *ppc_env_get_cpu(CPUPPCState *env)
>
A transition from CPUPPCState to PowerPCCPU can be considered safe,
just like PowerPCCPU::env access in the opposite direction.
This should slightly improve interrupt performance.
Reported-by: Anthony Liguori
Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber
---
target-ppc/cpu-qom.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 inse
11 matches
Mail list logo