Richard Henderson <[email protected]> writes:
> On 12/3/18 4:43 AM, Alex Bennée wrote: >>> case R_AARCH64_CONDBR19: >>> - reloc_pc19(code_ptr, (tcg_insn_unit *)value); >>> - break; >>> + return reloc_pc19(code_ptr, (tcg_insn_unit *)value); >>> default: >>> tcg_abort(); >>> } >>> - return true; >> >> nit: the default leg could return false for the same effect > > Would it be clearer changed to g_assert_not_reached()? > Because I'm not intending "unknown relocation" to have > the same effect as "out of range relocation". g_assert_not_reached would probably be better then. Is there any particular reason tcg has tcg_abort(), is it just for the slightly different report string? > > > r~ -- Alex Bennée
