rth@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: > On 12/10/2013 06:16 AM, Alex Bennée wrote: >> However my preference unless there is a strong objection would be to >> clean that up in later patches. For one thing the more instructions each >> patch handles the longer it takes to run the instruction validation on >> the rather slow models to have good coverage of the decoder! > > That'd be ok by me. I had a play trying to see what pulling out the common parts of decode and unallocated handling based on the ARM ARM pseudo-code into a separate function would look like. Unfortunately what I ended up with was a horrible function full of pass-by-reference parameters and a not particularly cleaner or shorter call-sites in each handler. I did briefly consider if I could construct a macro which would make for less duplicated code but suspect that won't help in the long run. This is certainly something I think that requires more thought. In the meantime I've addresses your other review comments and Peter should be pushing a new set of patches soon. Cheers, -- Alex Bennée QEMU/KVM Hacker for Linaro _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
