On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 01:24:58 +0900,
Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> In commit 81b3ddaf8772ec we fixed a use of uninitialized data
> in read_tcnt(). However this change wasn't enough to placate
> Coverity, which is not smart enough to see that if we read a
> 2 bit field and then handle cases 0, 1, 2 and 3
On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 at 18:03, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> If you are preparing a qemu-arm pull request, can you
> squeeze this patch in?
Yep, that was my plan.
thanks
-- PMM
Hi Peter,
If you are preparing a qemu-arm pull request, can you
squeeze this patch in?
On 3/26/21 7:49 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 3/26/21 2:34 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> ping for review?
>
> FYI:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg790977.html
>
>> On Fri, 19 Ma
On 3/26/21 2:34 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> ping for review?
FYI:
https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg790977.html
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 at 16:24, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>
>> In commit 81b3ddaf8772ec we fixed a use of uninitialized data
>> in read_tcnt(). However this change wasn'
ping for review?
thanks
-- PMM
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 at 16:24, Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> In commit 81b3ddaf8772ec we fixed a use of uninitialized data
> in read_tcnt(). However this change wasn't enough to placate
> Coverity, which is not smart enough to see that if we read a
> 2 bit field and then
In commit 81b3ddaf8772ec we fixed a use of uninitialized data
in read_tcnt(). However this change wasn't enough to placate
Coverity, which is not smart enough to see that if we read a
2 bit field and then handle cases 0, 1, 2 and 3 then there cannot
be a flow of execution through the switch default
