From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40261) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dnOMn-0005WM-Vt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 08:14:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dnOMi-0000XD-3R for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 08:14:37 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34776) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dnOMh-0000Wr-TK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 08:14:32 -0400 References: <20170830170601.15855-1-david@redhat.com> <20170830170601.15855-10-david@redhat.com> From: David Hildenbrand Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 14:14:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: 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: Thomas Huth , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Richard Henderson , Aurelien Jarno , cohuck@redhat.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, Alexander Graf On 30.08.2017 22:45, Thomas Huth wrote: > 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. Good point, I'll drop this patch. Thanks! > > Thomas > -- Thanks, David