From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45756) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z7m9i-0001Kl-AH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:00:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z7m9d-0000XW-GT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:00:02 -0400 Received: from mailapp01.imgtec.com ([195.59.15.196]:2638) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z7m9d-0000XG-9Y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:59:57 -0400 Message-ID: <558AC5E8.4080704@imgtec.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:59:52 +0100 From: Leon Alrae MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1434708524-25434-1-git-send-email-leon.alrae@imgtec.com> <1434708524-25434-4-git-send-email-leon.alrae@imgtec.com> <20150624143700.GC26795@aurel32.net> In-Reply-To: <20150624143700.GC26795@aurel32.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/5] target-mips: remove identical code in different branch List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Aurelien Jarno Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, matthew.fortune@imgtec.com On 24/06/2015 15:37, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On 2015-06-19 11:08, Leon Alrae wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Leon Alrae >> --- >> target-mips/translate.c | 25 ++++--------------------- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/target-mips/translate.c b/target-mips/translate.c >> index 1d128ee..6fd6dd9 100644 >> --- a/target-mips/translate.c >> +++ b/target-mips/translate.c >> @@ -11852,11 +11852,7 @@ static int decode_mips16_opc (CPUMIPSState *env, DisasContext *ctx) >> * when in debug mode... >> */ >> check_insn(ctx, ISA_MIPS32); >> - if (!(ctx->hflags & MIPS_HFLAG_DM)) { >> - generate_exception(ctx, EXCP_DBp); >> - } else { >> - generate_exception(ctx, EXCP_DBp); >> - } >> + generate_exception(ctx, EXCP_DBp); > > The reason for this duplicated code, is from the comment above, that is > we are not sure which exception should be generated in debug mode. If > someone knows the answer (or my experiment that on real hardware) that > might be a good opportu to fix that the correct way. Yes, that's why I left the comment so we are still aware of this problem and we know where to fix it once we know the answer. But at the time I was touching this code I felt it should be removed (it generates 4 medium issues in Coverity). Leon