From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A69BC433E0 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 09:20:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 339F3206A4 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 09:20:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="Mr37GICh" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 339F3206A4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:45596 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jiDx9-0003d4-ES for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 05:20:23 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47196) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jiDsf-0000F7-Ep for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 05:15:45 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-2.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.61]:49945 helo=us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jiDse-0006k4-LV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 05:15:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1591607742; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=G7ulp+rX88EJ5Xv4a/aYi7fb2lufDjo+gUvH7YpnZc0=; b=Mr37GIChmoidXkfpPLDeenEJ7PujCvpXiLqd1xGloGM11dOiQF5JSwLU11MAegoxIL+yEN xZKYmlMeFxvBPYDP2KsYZdeSGsSv3H5cY6XZE0xwNi49XWpPdDte3fDBbFlcYFoM4JpeVU 2ukFpJoVx030Dtov1tCHt5ysIW9+HgA= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-450-yBPukRNNPEmrLZj3EepWiw-1; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 05:15:38 -0400 X-MC-Unique: yBPukRNNPEmrLZj3EepWiw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFADF1854C49; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 09:15:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (ovpn-112-121.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.121]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AF3D5D9C9; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 09:15:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C0A6F11386A6; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 11:15:31 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Armbruster To: Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] or1k: Fix compilation hiccup References: <20200526185132.1652355-1-eblake@redhat.com> <87eeqx9alv.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <873676ksbb.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <09123e95-b1c1-be7b-1aa8-f68f99417b28@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 11:15:31 +0200 In-Reply-To: <09123e95-b1c1-be7b-1aa8-f68f99417b28@redhat.com> ("Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9=22's?= message of "Mon, 8 Jun 2020 08:22:17 +0200") Message-ID: <87tuzlj4uk.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.139.110.61; envelope-from=armbru@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/06/08 01:20:45 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Peter Maydell , Jia Liu , QEMU Trivial , QEMU Developers , Christophe de Dinechin , Stafford Horne Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 writes: > On 6/8/20 8:03 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Markus Armbruster writes: >>=20 >>> Peter Maydell writes: >>> >>>> On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 17:23, Christophe de Dinechin >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 2020-05-26 at 20:51 CEST, Eric Blake wrote... >>>>>> diff --git a/hw/openrisc/openrisc_sim.c b/hw/openrisc/openrisc_sim.c >>>>>> index d08ce6181199..95011a8015b4 100644 >>>>>> --- a/hw/openrisc/openrisc_sim.c >>>>>> +++ b/hw/openrisc/openrisc_sim.c >>>>>> @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ static void openrisc_sim_init(MachineState *mach= ine) >>>>>> const char *kernel_filename =3D machine->kernel_filename; >>>>>> OpenRISCCPU *cpu =3D NULL; >>>>>> MemoryRegion *ram; >>>>>> - qemu_irq *cpu_irqs[2]; >>>>>> + qemu_irq *cpu_irqs[2] =3D {}; >>>>> >>>>> Why is the value [2] correct here? The loop that initializes loops ov= er >>>>> machine->smp.cpus. Is it always less than 2 on this machine? >>>> >>>> Yes: openrisc_sim_machine_init() sets mc->max_cpus =3D 2. >>>> My suggestion of adding an assert() is essentially telling the >>>> compiler that indeed smp_cpus must always be in the range [1,2], >>>> which we can tell but it can't. >>> >>> Do we have a proper patch for this on the list? >>=20 >> Apparently not. >>=20 >> Philippe did try Peter's suggestion, found it works, but then posted it >> only to Launchpad. Philippe, please post to the list, so we can finally >> get this fixed. > > Sorry since it was Eric finding, I didn't understood I had to post it. > Will do. You didn't *have* to, but it'll help if you do :)