qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PULL v3 00/44] tcg patch queue


From: Warner Losh
Subject: Re: [PULL v3 00/44] tcg patch queue
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 12:54:50 -0600


> On Sep 14, 2021, at 11:27 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org> wrote:
> 
> On 9/14/21 7:13 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 16:53, Richard Henderson
>> <richard.henderson@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Version 3: Rebase and fix a minor patch conflict.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> r~
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The following changes since commit c6f5e042d89e79206cd1ce5525d3df219f13c3cc:
>>> 
>>>  Merge remote-tracking branch 
>>> 'remotes/pmaydell/tags/pull-target-arm-20210913-3' into staging (2021-09-13 
>>> 21:06:15 +0100)
>>> 
>>> are available in the Git repository at:
>>> 
>>>  https://gitlab.com/rth7680/qemu.git tags/pull-tcg-20210914
>>> 
>>> for you to fetch changes up to a5b759b6dca7daf87fa5007a7f5784bf22f3830f:
>>> 
>>>  tcg/arm: More use of the TCGReg enum (2021-09-14 07:59:43 -0700)
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Fix translation race condition for user-only.
>>> Fix tcg/i386 encoding for VPSLLVQ, VPSRLVQ.
>>> Fix tcg/arm tcg_out_vec_op signature.
>>> Fix tcg/ppc (32bit) build with clang.
>>> Remove dupluate TCG_KICK_PERIOD definition.
>>> Remove unused tcg_global_reg_new.
>>> Restrict cpu_exec_interrupt and its callees to sysemu.
>>> Cleanups for tcg/arm.
>> 
>> This throws up new warnings on FreeBSD:
>> 
>> ../src/bsd-user/main.c:148:1: warning: function declared 'noreturn'
>> should not return [-Winvalid-noreturn]
>> 
>> Unlike linux-user, where cpu_loop() is the direct implementation
>> of the target-specific main loop, on bsd-user cpu_loop() seems
>> to just call target_cpu_loop(). Since target_cpu_loop() isn't
>> marked noreturn, the compiler complains about cpu_loop() being
>> marked noreturn.
> 
> Sorry, my bad. I ran this on Gitlab CI but now realize the
> FreeBSD job is marked as "allow to fail" so I missed it :(
> 
>> Easy fix would be to just drop the bsd-user part of
>> "user: Mark cpu_loop() with noreturn attribute" I guess.
>> Otherwise you could try marking all the target_cpu_loop()
>> functions noreturn as well.
> 
> Richard, can you drop the offending patch from your pull
> request?

Yes. I think that’s best. I’m wanting to reorg a bit here, but I have
a number of architectures to plow through to do that…  I’ll pick it
up in my queue of things to do.  Sorry for the hassles that the
non-standard arrangement in bsd-user has. I’ll align them more
closely going forward.

Warner


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]