| Submitter | Alon Levy |
|---|---|
| Date | April 28, 2011, 8:07 a.m. |
| Message ID | <1303978031-24366-1-git-send-email-alevy@redhat.com> |
| Download | mbox | patch |
| Permalink | /patch/93195/ |
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Comments
On 04/28/2011 10:07 AM, Alon Levy wrote: > Signed-off-by: Alon Levy<alevy@redhat.com> > --- > hw/ide/atapi.c | 4 +++- > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/ide/atapi.c b/hw/ide/atapi.c > index 690a0ab..81fa01b 100644 > --- a/hw/ide/atapi.c > +++ b/hw/ide/atapi.c > @@ -1080,12 +1080,14 @@ static const struct { > > void ide_atapi_cmd(IDEState *s) > { > +#ifdef DEBUG_IDE_ATAPI > const uint8_t *packet; > +#endif > uint8_t *buf; > > - packet = s->io_buffer; > buf = s->io_buffer; > #ifdef DEBUG_IDE_ATAPI > + packet = s->io_buffer; > { > int i; > printf("ATAPI limit=0x%x packet:", s->lcyl | (s->hcyl<< 8)); ACK ... but why don't we allow interspersing declarations and statements? There are already so many C99 and GCC extensions in use in QEMU. Paolo
Am 28.04.2011 14:07, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > On 04/28/2011 10:07 AM, Alon Levy wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Alon Levy<alevy@redhat.com> >> --- >> hw/ide/atapi.c | 4 +++- >> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/ide/atapi.c b/hw/ide/atapi.c >> index 690a0ab..81fa01b 100644 >> --- a/hw/ide/atapi.c >> +++ b/hw/ide/atapi.c >> @@ -1080,12 +1080,14 @@ static const struct { >> >> void ide_atapi_cmd(IDEState *s) >> { >> +#ifdef DEBUG_IDE_ATAPI >> const uint8_t *packet; >> +#endif >> uint8_t *buf; >> >> - packet = s->io_buffer; >> buf = s->io_buffer; >> #ifdef DEBUG_IDE_ATAPI >> + packet = s->io_buffer; >> { >> int i; >> printf("ATAPI limit=0x%x packet:", s->lcyl | (s->hcyl<< 8)); > > ACK > > ... but why don't we allow interspersing declarations and statements? > There are already so many C99 and GCC extensions in use in QEMU. > > Paolo What about using buf instead of packet (no need for extensions, reduces code by 4 lines)? Stefan W.
On 04/28/2011 02:16 PM, Stefan Weil wrote: > > What about using buf instead of packet (no need for extensions, reduces > code by 4 lines)? Uh, you're right!... I was assuming some side effect later, but after the refactoring this is indeed the only place where packet is used in the function, and it could use buf. Paolo
Patch
diff --git a/hw/ide/atapi.c b/hw/ide/atapi.c index 690a0ab..81fa01b 100644 --- a/hw/ide/atapi.c +++ b/hw/ide/atapi.c @@ -1080,12 +1080,14 @@ static const struct { void ide_atapi_cmd(IDEState *s) { +#ifdef DEBUG_IDE_ATAPI const uint8_t *packet; +#endif uint8_t *buf; - packet = s->io_buffer; buf = s->io_buffer; #ifdef DEBUG_IDE_ATAPI + packet = s->io_buffer; { int i; printf("ATAPI limit=0x%x packet:", s->lcyl | (s->hcyl << 8));
Signed-off-by: Alon Levy <alevy@redhat.com> --- hw/ide/atapi.c | 4 +++- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)