From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:52390)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1THM8E-0006l6-6o
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:00:35 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1THM8A-0006bJ-CJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:00:28 -0400
Received: from mail-pb0-f45.google.com ([209.85.160.45]:54915)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1THM89-0006aR-Ln
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:00:26 -0400
Received: by pbbrp2 with SMTP id rp2so4225142pbb.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Richard Henderson <rth7680@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5064CC6F.90806@twiddle.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:00:15 -0700
From: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1348766113-18373-1-git-send-email-aurelien@aurel32.net>
	<1348766113-18373-14-git-send-email-aurelien@aurel32.net>
	<5064AF5B.2050704@twiddle.net>
	<20120927203711.GO20151@ohm.aurel32.net>
In-Reply-To: <20120927203711.GO20151@ohm.aurel32.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 13/13] tcg: rework TCG ops flags
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 09/27/2012 01:37 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> > I don't agree with SIDE_EFFECTS implying exceptions.  How can "br" cause an
>> > exception?  Or for that matter "st_i32", recalling that we're not storing
>> > to guest memory.
> That's exactly why SIDE_EFFECTS has been removed from this op in the
> previous patch.

Well, you removed it from br, but not st.

> I think it implies exception, because I don't see why an op shouldn't be
> removed otherwise (remember ops without outputs are never removed).

In which case, because the non-qemu store insns cannot raise exceptions,
there ought to be exactly zero instances of TCG_OPF_SIDE_EFFECTS remaining.
At which point we simply ought to remove it.


r~