Re: [RFC v11 28/55] target/arm: refactor exception and cpu code

[Claudio Fontana]

On 3/25/21 7:43 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 3/25/21 5:59 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>>> Isn't tcg/tcg-* redundant?
>>
>> I considered that, and at some point I had "cpu.c" for x86 too. After 
>> working on it for a while, I noticed how
>> it got really confusing in practice to have files called just "cpu.c" when 
>> working on them, just too many files are called "cpu.c". It was confusing.
>>
>> I also like the extra emphasis on the accel for this:
>>
>> kvm/kvm.c
>> kvm/kvm-cpu.c
>> kvm/kvm-stub.c
>>
>> tcg/tcg-cpu.c
>> tcg/tcg-stub.c
> 
> But then you go and invent
> 
> cpu-sve.c
> kvm/cpu-sve.c
> tcg/cpu-sve.c
> 
> etc.  So, please make up your mind.
> 



Inconsistencies are all over already, and the two are very unrelated things.

tcg-cpu comes from accel-cpu, where accel- is replaced by tcg- in this case.

cpu-sve is a specialization of "cpu" where we currently put all the properties 
and the like.

cpu-sve-props is probably a better name.