Re: [Qemu-devel] defining VIXL_DEBUG?

[Peter Maydell]

On 18 January 2016 at 10:21, Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> wrote:
> I've gotten four new Coverity reports in libvixl.  All of them are
> caused by Coverity assuming that LaneSizeInBitsFromFormat can return 0.

Yeah, I fed these back to upstream.

(There are also some others do do with integer overflow etc which
I think are unrelated to LaneSizeInBitsFromFormat.)

>  The actual code in the function is
>
>     default: VIXL_UNREACHABLE(); return 0;
>
> so this is obviously a false positive.  Defining VIXL_DEBUG would cause
> VIXL_UNREACHABLE() to call abort().  Any opinion about whether/where to
> do so?

Does defining it to call abort() result in unreachable-code warnings
for the "return 0;" ?

thanks
-- PMM