Hi, Thanks for reviewing those changes.
“can you send a patch with the bugfix only” By “the bugfix only” you mean the previous commit, the one that dynamically loads the DLLs? FWIW, without this patch, i386 targets won’t compile, so I’d consider that an improvement. Probably I should’ve explicitly mentioned this in the commit message. Regards, Lucian Petrut From: Paolo Bonzini<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 1:13 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Lucian Petrut<mailto:[email protected]>; Alessandro Pilotti<mailto:[email protected]>; Justin Terry<mailto:[email protected]>; Richard Henderson<mailto:[email protected]>; Eduardo Habkost<mailto:[email protected]>; open list:All patches CC here<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] WHPX: fix some compiler warnings On 15/05/2018 19:35, [email protected] wrote: > From: Lucian Petrut <[email protected]> > > This patch fixes a few compiler warnings, especially in case of > x86 targets, where the number of registers was not properly handled > and could cause an overflow. > > Signed-off-by: Alessandro Pilotti <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Justin Terry (VM) <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Lucian Petrut <[email protected]> > --- > target/i386/whpx-all.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- > 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/target/i386/whpx-all.c b/target/i386/whpx-all.c > index 0a29d56..2fd3397 100644 > --- a/target/i386/whpx-all.c > +++ b/target/i386/whpx-all.c > @@ -226,24 +226,31 @@ static void whpx_set_registers(CPUState *cpu) > struct whpx_vcpu *vcpu = get_whpx_vcpu(cpu); > struct CPUX86State *env = (CPUArchState *)(cpu->env_ptr); > X86CPU *x86_cpu = X86_CPU(cpu); > - struct whpx_register_set vcxt = {0}; > + struct whpx_register_set vcxt; > HRESULT hr; > - int idx = 0; > + int idx; > + int idx_next; > int i; > int v86, r86; > > assert(cpu_is_stopped(cpu) || qemu_cpu_is_self(cpu)); > > + memset(&vcxt, 0, sizeof(struct whpx_register_set)); This change does not seem like an improvement, can you send a patch with the bugfix only? Thanks, Paolo
