From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60536) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dn9sE-0002lh-7S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 16:46:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dn9sD-0008LK-H0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 16:46:06 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53832) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dn9sD-0008L0-AR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 16:46:05 -0400 References: <20170830170601.15855-1-david@redhat.com> <20170830170601.15855-10-david@redhat.com> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 22:45:58 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170830170601.15855-10-david@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 09/11] target/s390x: tcg_s390_program_interrupt() will never return List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: David Hildenbrand , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Richard Henderson , Aurelien Jarno , cohuck@redhat.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, Alexander Graf On 30.08.2017 19:05, David Hildenbrand wrote: > The assert should hold in both scenarios. > > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand > --- > 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. Thomas