From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NVWd9-0004pm-Iq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:49:23 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NVWd6-0004jL-1J
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:49:23 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54287 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NVWd5-0004j1-N8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:49:19 -0500
Received: from mail-pz0-f190.google.com ([209.85.222.190]:46777)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <blauwirbel@gmail.com>) id 1NVWd5-0004TS-8J
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:49:19 -0500
Received: by pzk28 with SMTP id 28so55024pzk.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:49:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20100114030924.GF24002@amit-x200.redhat.com>
References: <20100112181307.GD19438@amit-x200.redhat.com>
	<f43fc5581001121135x790c1fb1yf3ba5883ac6bd8c3@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100113070254.GD31063@amit-x200.redhat.com>
	<f43fc5581001131108x69dd887cme8c242b963714558@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100114030924.GF24002@amit-x200.redhat.com>
From: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:48:52 +0000
Message-ID: <f43fc5581001141248u4516fbfay1f6a966b5f3c4568@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Static analysis using clang on the x86_64 target
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Amit Shah <amit.shah@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:09 AM, Amit Shah <amit.shah@redhat.com> wrote:
> On (Wed) Jan 13 2010 [19:08:11], Blue Swirl wrote:
>>
>> Thanks. I fixed the warnings related to Sparc32. Were there really no
>> new warnings for Sparc64?
>
> Looks like it; vl.c gets reported three times at the same locations so 3
> arches have been compiled.
>
> My test machine is down ATM, I can confirm later when it's up.
>
> BTW for the patch
>
> commit 884a0c7677cf8431d2a632673914994c2e01673d
>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0pcnet: remove dead nested assignment, spotted by clang
>
> diff --git a/hw/pcnet.c b/hw/pcnet.c
> index 91d106d..44b5b31 100644
> --- a/hw/pcnet.c
> +++ b/hw/pcnet.c
> @@ -1608,7 +1608,7 @@ static void pcnet_aprom_writeb(void *opaque,
> uint32_t addr, uint32_t val)
> =C2=A0static uint32_t pcnet_aprom_readb(void *opaque, uint32_t addr)
> =C2=A0{
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 PCNetState *s =3D opaque;
> - =C2=A0 =C2=A0uint32_t val =3D s->prom[addr &=3D 15];
> + =C2=A0 =C2=A0uint32_t val =3D s->prom[addr & 15];
> =C2=A0#ifdef PCNET_DEBUG
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 printf("pcnet_aprom_readb addr=3D0x%08x val=3D0x%02x\n", ad=
dr, val);
> =C2=A0#endif
>
>
> if debugging is enabled, addr will now print a different value than
> earlier.

It should be harmless, pcnet_aprom_readb doesn't do addr & 15 either.
It's probably a relic from the time when the devices were passed the
MMIO address instead of offset.