Re: [PATCH v6 08/25] target/hppa: call plugin trap callbacks

["Julian Ganz" <neither@nut.email>]

Hi Philippe,

September 22, 2025 at 1:38 PM, "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" wrote:
> On 4/9/25 22:46, Julian Ganz wrote:
> >  diff --git a/target/hppa/int_helper.c b/target/hppa/int_helper.c
> >  index 191ae19404..0742990c90 100644
> >  --- a/target/hppa/int_helper.c
> >  +++ b/target/hppa/int_helper.c
> >  @@ -212,6 +214,48 @@ void hppa_cpu_do_interrupt(CPUState *cs)
> >  env->iasq_f = 0;
> >  env->iasq_b = 0;
> >  > + switch (i) {
> >  + case EXCP_HPMC:
> >  + case EXCP_POWER_FAIL:
> >  + case EXCP_RC:
> >  + case EXCP_EXT_INTERRUPT:
> >  + case EXCP_LPMC:
> >  + case EXCP_PER_INTERRUPT:
> >  + case EXCP_TOC:
> >  + qemu_plugin_vcpu_interrupt_cb(cs, last_pc);
> > 
> In the other target patches you list a set and default to
> the rest, why listing here the 2 sets and then falling
> back to the default? Should the default be g_assert_not_reached()?

Most architectures have either few inerrupts (and lots of exception) or
some clear distinction (e.g. RISC-V has a bit differentiating the two).
I found HPPA a bit confusing in this regard. Or to be more precise had
the feeling I would forget some case if I did not write them all down.
This _should_ mean that I already covered anything, but the logging code
further down also makes a point of covering the case that the exception
index is not one of these constants.

My memory is hazy but I might have read somewhere that some HPPA
platforms _may_ have additional interrupts not covered in the ISA spec.
At least this would not have been unheard of for an architecture.

If I'm wrong about that I'm happy to declare the default case
unreachable.

Regards,
Julian