qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 09/11] target/s390x: tcg_s390_program_interru


From: David Hildenbrand
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 09/11] target/s390x: tcg_s390_program_interrupt() will never return
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 14:14:28 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1

On 30.08.2017 22:45, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 30.08.2017 19:05, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> The assert should hold in both scenarios.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  target/s390x/interrupt.c | 3 +--
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/target/s390x/interrupt.c b/target/s390x/interrupt.c
>> index 058e219fe5..79bab5e2f3 100644
>> --- a/target/s390x/interrupt.c
>> +++ b/target/s390x/interrupt.c
>> @@ -32,9 +32,8 @@ static void tcg_s390_program_interrupt(CPUS390XState *env, 
>> uint32_t code,
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_TCG
>>      trigger_pgm_exception(env, code, ilen);
>>      cpu_loop_exit(CPU(s390_env_get_cpu(env)));
>> -#else
>> -    g_assert_not_reached();
>>  #endif
>> +    g_assert_not_reached();
>>  }
> 
> Not sure if this really makes sense ... cpu_loop_exit() is already
> marked with QEMU_NORETURN, so a know-it-all new version of GCC might
> complain one day if there's other code after this call. I'd better keep
> it the way it is.

Good point, I'll drop this patch. Thanks!

> 
>  Thomas
> 


-- 

Thanks,

David



reply via email to

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