qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 8/8] linux-user: Enable NPTL for m68k


From: Peter Maydell
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 8/8] linux-user: Enable NPTL for m68k
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 12:35:57 +0100

On 13 July 2013 11:28, Laurent Vivier <address@hidden> wrote:
> Le 12/07/2013 22:12, Peter Maydell a écrit :
>> --- a/linux-user/syscall.c
>> +++ b/linux-user/syscall.c
>> @@ -8558,6 +8558,11 @@ abi_long do_syscall(void *cpu_env, int num,
>> abi_long arg1,
>>   #elif defined(TARGET_I386) && defined(TARGET_ABI32)
>>         ret = do_set_thread_area(cpu_env, arg1);
>>         break;
>> +#elif defined(TARGET_M68K)
>> +      {
>> +          TaskState *ts = ((CPUArchState *)cpu_env)->opaque;
>> +          ts->tp_value = arg1;
>> +      }
>
> Seems a "break" is missing here ?

Yes.

>>   #else
>>         goto unimplemented_nowarn;
>>   #endif
>> @@ -8566,6 +8571,11 @@ abi_long do_syscall(void *cpu_env, int num,
>> abi_long arg1,
>>       case TARGET_NR_get_thread_area:
>>   #if defined(TARGET_I386) && defined(TARGET_ABI32)
>>           ret = do_get_thread_area(cpu_env, arg1);
>> +#elif defined(TARGET_M68K)
>> +        {
>> +            TaskState *ts = ((CPUArchState *)cpu_env)->opaque;
>> +            ts->tp_value = arg1;
>
> perhaps "ret = ts->tp_value;" ?

Yes, silly cut-n-paste mistake. As I say I couldn't
test m68k.

Also I notice that both this and the existing i386
case are missing the 'break' and will fall through
to the next syscall.

thanks
-- PMM



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]