On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:11 -0800, Victor Kamensky wrote: > > I would take 50 byteswaps with a clear ABI any day over an obscure > > standard that can avoid a single hardware-on-register instruction. > This > > is about designing a clean software interface, not about building an > > optimized integrated stack. > > > > Unfortunately, this is going nowhere, so I think we need to stop > this > > thread. As you can see I have sent a patch as a clarification to > the > > ABI, if it's merged we can move on with more important tasks. > > OK, that is fine. I still believe is not the best choice, > but I agree that we need to move on. I will respin my > V7 KVM BE patches according to this new semantics, I will > integrate comments that you (thanks!) and others gave me > over mailing list and post my series again when it is ready. Right, the whole "host endian" is a horrible choice from every way you look at it, but I'm afraid it's unfixable since it's already ABI :-( Ben. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
