From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59694) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UrDzN-000476-9n for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:07:54 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UrDzM-0007we-48 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:07:53 -0400 Received: from mail-ea0-x236.google.com ([2a00:1450:4013:c01::236]:57546) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UrDzL-0007wI-Up for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:07:52 -0400 Received: by mail-ea0-f182.google.com with SMTP id d10so6427421eaj.13 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 14:07:51 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <51C8B523.6030204@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 23:07:47 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1372096130-24994-1-git-send-email-sw@weilnetz.de> <1372096130-24994-3-git-send-email-sw@weilnetz.de> <51C8ABBC.1070902@redhat.com> <51C8AD7C.9000500@weilnetz.de> In-Reply-To: <51C8AD7C.9000500@weilnetz.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/3] spapr: Fix compiler warning for some versions of gcc (h_remove) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Weil Cc: David Gibson , qemu-devel , Alexander Graf Il 24/06/2013 22:35, Stefan Weil ha scritto: > Am 24.06.2013 22:27, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: >> Il 24/06/2013 19:48, Stefan Weil ha scritto: >>> i686-w64-mingw32-gcc (GCC) 4.6.3 from Debian wheezy reports this warning: >>> >>> hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c:188:1: warning: >>> control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type] >>> >>> Replacing the 4th case REMOVE_HW (which is currently unused) by the default >>> case fixes this warning. >>> >>> The assertion is dead code because all possible cases are handled in the >>> switch statements, so remove it. This avoids future warnings from static >>> code analyzers. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil >>> --- >>> hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c | 4 +--- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c >>> index 00f21f5..d49ce53 100644 >>> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c >>> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c >>> @@ -180,11 +180,9 @@ static target_ulong h_remove(PowerPCCPU *cpu, sPAPREnvironment *spapr, >>> case REMOVE_PARM: >>> return H_PARAMETER; >>> >>> - case REMOVE_HW: >>> + default: /* REMOVE_HW */ >>> return H_HARDWARE; >>> } >>> - >>> - assert(0); >>> } >>> >>> #define H_BULK_REMOVE_TYPE 0xc000000000000000ULL >>> >> Does s/assert(0)/abort()/ fix the warning too? That's clearer. > > Yes, that also fixes this warning. A better compiler or a static > code checker might then complain about dead code because all > possible cases are handled in the switch statement. We'll get there when we see it... and such a compiler can well learn to ignore a dead abort(). Paolo