22.10.2015 02:15, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/19/2015 04:08 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> I am not sure why the compiler does not catch it. There is no
>> semantic change since gen_excp returns EXIT_NORETURN, but the
>> old code is wrong.
>>
>> Reported by Coverity.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Paolo B
On 03/11/2015 13:01, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> 22.10.2015 02:15, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 10/19/2015 04:08 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> I am not sure why the compiler does not catch it. There is no
>>> semantic change since gen_excp returns EXIT_NORETURN, but the
>>> old code is wrong.
>>>
19.10.2015 17:08, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> I am not sure why the compiler does not catch it. There is no
> semantic change since gen_excp returns EXIT_NORETURN, but the
> old code is wrong.
Applied to -trivial. Indeed it's interesting why gcc can't
catch it, might be due to unlikely() (which smell
On 10/19/2015 04:08 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
I am not sure why the compiler does not catch it. There is no
semantic change since gen_excp returns EXIT_NORETURN, but the
old code is wrong.
Reported by Coverity.
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
---
target-alpha/translate.c | 2 +-
1 file changed,
I am not sure why the compiler does not catch it. There is no
semantic change since gen_excp returns EXIT_NORETURN, but the
old code is wrong.
Reported by Coverity.
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
---
target-alpha/translate.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tar