[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH-for-4.1] target/arm: Add missing break statement
From: |
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH-for-4.1] target/arm: Add missing break statement for Hypervisor Trap Exception |
Date: |
Fri, 19 Jul 2019 14:59:04 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 |
On 7/19/19 1:47 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 at 12:15, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> Reported by GCC9 when building with -Wimplicit-fallthrough=2:
>>
>> target/arm/helper.c: In function ‘arm_cpu_do_interrupt_aarch32_hyp’:
>> target/arm/helper.c:7958:14: error: this statement may fall through
>> [-Werror=implicit-fallthrough=]
>> 7958 | addr = 0x14;
>> | ~~~~~^~~~~~
>> target/arm/helper.c:7959:5: note: here
>> 7959 | default:
>> | ^~~~~~~
>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>>
>> Fixes: b9bc21ff9f9
>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden>
>> ---
>> target/arm/helper.c | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/target/arm/helper.c b/target/arm/helper.c
>> index 20f8728be1..b74c23a9bc 100644
>> --- a/target/arm/helper.c
>> +++ b/target/arm/helper.c
>> @@ -7956,6 +7956,7 @@ static void arm_cpu_do_interrupt_aarch32_hyp(CPUState
>> *cs)
>> break;
>> case EXCP_HYP_TRAP:
>> addr = 0x14;
>> + break;
>> default:
>> cpu_abort(cs, "Unhandled exception 0x%x\n", cs->exception_index);
>> }
>
> I think this is right, but EXCP_HYP_TRAP is a bit odd -- we appear
> to use this only for the case of "SMC instruction is trapped from
> NS EL1 to EL2 by HCR.TSC". I was expecting more traps-to-EL2
> to use this EXCP_ variable... Mostly we seem to use EXCP_UDEF,
> eg for CP_ACCESS_TRAP_UNCATEGORIZED_EL2 coprocessor/sysreg accesses:
> this has the same behaviour as EXCP_HYP_TRAP as long as we know
> we are going from an EL below 2 to EL2. Which I think we could
> also use in the one place we use EXCP_HYP_TRAP; or we could make
> wider use of EXCP_HYP_TRAP, since feeding everything through
> EXCP_UDEF is rather confusing.
>
> Anyway, for 4.1 we should do this.
> Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <address@hidden>
Thanks, if you take this I forgot to mention:
Reported-by: Stefan Weil <address@hidden>
Regards,
Phil.