From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45357) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XpI9v-0002Ah-C0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:47:44 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XpI9m-0000AE-AB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:47:35 -0500 Received: from mail-wi0-x235.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]:40355) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XpI9m-00009y-1Z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:47:26 -0500 Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id n3so2929406wiv.2 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:47:25 -0800 (PST) Sender: Richard Henderson Message-ID: <546615F9.1000002@twiddle.net> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:47:21 +0100 From: Richard Henderson MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1415723092-4088-1-git-send-email-rth@twiddle.net> <1415723092-4088-9-git-send-email-rth@twiddle.net> <54662041.2070700@mail.uni-paderborn.de> In-Reply-To: <54662041.2070700@mail.uni-paderborn.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2.3 8/8] tcg: Remove unused opcodes List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Bastian Koppelmann , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: aurelien@aurel32.net On 11/14/2014 04:31 PM, Bastian Koppelmann wrote: > > On 11/11/2014 04:24 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: >> diff --git a/tci.c b/tci.c >> index 4711ee4..28292b3 100644 >> --- a/tci.c >> +++ b/tci.c >> @@ -506,19 +506,6 @@ uintptr_t tcg_qemu_tb_exec(CPUArchState *env, uint8_t >> *tb_ptr) >> tb_ptr += 2; >> switch (opc) { >> - case INDEX_op_end: >> - case INDEX_op_nop: >> - break; >> - case INDEX_op_nop1: >> - case INDEX_op_nop2: >> - case INDEX_op_nop3: >> - case INDEX_op_nopn: >> - case INDEX_op_discard: >> - TODO(); >> - break; >> - case INDEX_op_set_label: >> - TODO(); >> - break; > Why do you remove the TODO notice for INDEX_op_discard/set_label? Is TCI no > longer maintained? Barely. But these opcodes never reach this far anyway, so the todo is bogus. r~