Re: [PATCH] target/i386: Remove dead assignment to ss in do_interrupt64()

2024-07-29 Thread Peter Maydell
On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 at 17:25, Peter Maydell wrote: > > Coverity points out that in do_interrupt64() in the "to inner > privilege" codepath we set "ss = 0", but because we also set > "new_stack = 1" there, later in the function we will always override > that value of ss with "ss = 0 | dpl". > > Rem

Re: [PATCH] target/i386: Remove dead assignment to ss in do_interrupt64()

2024-07-23 Thread Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
On 23/7/24 18:25, Peter Maydell wrote: Coverity points out that in do_interrupt64() in the "to inner privilege" codepath we set "ss = 0", but because we also set "new_stack = 1" there, later in the function we will always override that value of ss with "ss = 0 | dpl". Remove the unnecessary init

Re: [PATCH] target/i386: Remove dead assignment to ss in do_interrupt64()

2024-07-23 Thread Richard Henderson
On 7/24/24 02:25, Peter Maydell wrote: Coverity points out that in do_interrupt64() in the "to inner privilege" codepath we set "ss = 0", but because we also set "new_stack = 1" there, later in the function we will always override that value of ss with "ss = 0 | dpl". Remove the unnecessary init

[PATCH] target/i386: Remove dead assignment to ss in do_interrupt64()

2024-07-23 Thread Peter Maydell
Coverity points out that in do_interrupt64() in the "to inner privilege" codepath we set "ss = 0", but because we also set "new_stack = 1" there, later in the function we will always override that value of ss with "ss = 0 | dpl". Remove the unnecessary initialization of ss, which allows us to redu