Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 27 July 2012 14:37, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> This command attempts to map to the behavior of -cpu ?. Unfortunately, the >> output of this command differs wildly across targets. > > I've never really understood why so much of the cpu selection > logic is deferred to target-*... It will be fixed as part of the QOM conversion. >> To accomodate this, we use a weak symbol to implement a default version of the >> command that fails with a QERR_NOT_SUPPORTED error code. Targets can then >> override and implement this command if it makes sense for them. > > This is a bit of a weak reason (boom boom!) for requiring a platform > specific thing like weak symbols, though, and it's not how we handle > similar existing cases (eg see the configure/makefile logic for > memory_mapping.c vs memory_mapping-stub.c). I don't think we have a consistent approach today FWIW. I think using weak symbols is sufficiently compelling that it will become consistent. > > If having separate configure/make stuff for each of these things > sounds a bit heavyweight, we could just have a target-stubs.c which > #includes cpu.h and has a lot of > #ifndef TARGET_QUERY_CPUDEFS > [stub version] > #endif > #ifndef TARGET_GET_MEMORY_MAPPING > [stub version] > #endif This is pretty hideous. FWIW, weak symbols are supported on OS X as of 10.2. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > etc. > > -- PMM -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list