On 12 September 2013 09:03, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> On 10.09.2013 10:45, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 10 September 2013 09:27, Claudio Fontana
>> wrote:
>>> On another side, I end up having to manually revert some parts
>>> of these which you put as prerequisites, during bisection when
>>> landin
On 10.09.2013 15:16, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 09/10/2013 01:27 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>> There are two aspects.
>>
>> On one side, although some changes do not break anything, I see some
>> problems in them.
>
> Then let us discuss them, sooner rather than later.
>
>> Putting them as a
On 10.09.2013 10:45, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 10 September 2013 09:27, Claudio Fontana
> wrote:
>> On another side, I end up having to manually revert some parts
>> of these which you put as prerequisites, during bisection when
>> landing after them, which is a huge time drain when tracking
>> r
On 09/10/2013 01:27 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> There are two aspects.
>
> On one side, although some changes do not break anything, I see some problems
> in them.
Then let us discuss them, sooner rather than later.
> Putting them as a prerequisite for the rest forces us to agreeing on
> every
On 10 September 2013 09:27, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> On another side, I end up having to manually revert some parts
> of these which you put as prerequisites, during bisection when
> landing after them, which is a huge time drain when tracking
> regressions introduced in the later part of the seri
On 09.09.2013 17:07, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 09/09/2013 08:02 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>> On 09.09.2013 16:08, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>> On 09/09/2013 01:13 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
after carefully reading and testing your patches, this is how I suggest to
proceed:
>>>
On 09.09.2013 16:08, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 09/09/2013 01:13 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>> after carefully reading and testing your patches, this is how I suggest to
>> proceed:
>>
>> first do the implementation of the new functionality (tcg opcodes, jit) in a
>> way that is consistent wi
On 09/09/2013 08:02 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> On 09.09.2013 16:08, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 09/09/2013 01:13 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>>> after carefully reading and testing your patches, this is how I suggest to
>>> proceed:
>>>
>>> first do the implementation of the new functionality
On 9 September 2013 16:02, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> I guess we are stuck then. With the cosmetic and restructuring
> stuff coming before, I cannot cherry pick the good parts later.
...what do you need to cherry pick it into?
-- PMM
On 09/09/2013 01:13 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> after carefully reading and testing your patches, this is how I suggest to
> proceed:
>
> first do the implementation of the new functionality (tcg opcodes, jit) in a
> way that is consistent with the existing code.
> No type changes, no refactor
Hello Richard,
On 02.09.2013 19:54, Richard Henderson wrote:
> I'm not sure if I posted v2 or not, but my branch is named -3,
> therefore this is v3. ;-)
>
> The jumbo "fixme" patch from v1 has been split up. This has been
> updated for the changes in the tlb helpers over the past few weeks.
>
On 3 September 2013 08:37, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Is there a way yet to compile and run a 'qemu-system-aarch64'? [on a
> regular x86-64 host]
The code for this has not yet been written :-)
The patchset I posted will build a qemu-system-aarch64 but
with no actual 64 bit CPUs (you can run all
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 10:54:34AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> I'm not sure if I posted v2 or not, but my branch is named -3,
>> therefore this is v3. ;-)
>>
>> The jumbo "fixme" patch from v1 has been split up. This has been
>>
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 10:54:34AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> I'm not sure if I posted v2 or not, but my branch is named -3,
> therefore this is v3. ;-)
>
> The jumbo "fixme" patch from v1 has been split up. This has been
> updated for the changes in the tlb helpers over the past few week
I'm not sure if I posted v2 or not, but my branch is named -3,
therefore this is v3. ;-)
The jumbo "fixme" patch from v1 has been split up. This has been
updated for the changes in the tlb helpers over the past few weeks.
For the benefit of trivial conflict resolution, it's relative to a
tree th
I'm not sure if I posted v2 or not, but my branch is named -3,
therefore this is v3. ;-)
The jumbo "fixme" patch from v1 has been split up. This has been
updated for the changes in the tlb helpers over the past few weeks.
For the benefit of trivial conflict resolution, it's relative to a
tree th
16 matches
Mail list logo
