On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 05:44:11PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 16:08, Richard Henderson
> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/1/19 6:08 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> > >
> > > -for (i = 0; i < s->num_cpu; i++) {
> > > +/*
> > > + * This clues in gcc that our on-stack buffers do, i
On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 16:08, Richard Henderson
wrote:
>
> On 12/1/19 6:08 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> >
> > -for (i = 0; i < s->num_cpu; i++) {
> > +/*
> > + * This clues in gcc that our on-stack buffers do, in fact have
> > + * enough room for the cpu numbers. gcc 9.2.1 on 32-bit x
On 12/1/19 6:08 AM, David Gibson wrote:
>
> -for (i = 0; i < s->num_cpu; i++) {
> +/*
> + * This clues in gcc that our on-stack buffers do, in fact have
> + * enough room for the cpu numbers. gcc 9.2.1 on 32-bit x86
> + * doesn't figure this out, otherwise and gives spurious
exynos4210_gic_realize() prints the number of cpus into some temporary
buffers, but it only allows 3 bytes space for it. That's plenty:
existing machines will only ever set this value to EXYNOS4210_NCPUS
(2). But the compiler can't always figure that out, so some[*] gcc9
versions emit -Wformat-tr
