From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56131) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fIZxL-00060i-0m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 May 2018 09:25:32 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fIZxJ-00034P-6I for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 May 2018 09:25:30 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-x244.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c06::244]:38492) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fIZxI-000344-Vx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 May 2018 09:25:29 -0400 Received: by mail-oi0-x244.google.com with SMTP id k17-v6so113993oih.5 for ; Tue, 15 May 2018 06:25:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <99693ba4-c282-a10b-e811-697617f7ee06@weilnetz.de> References: <20180513090613.27960-1-sw@weilnetz.de> <99693ba4-c282-a10b-e811-697617f7ee06@weilnetz.de> From: Peter Maydell Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 14:25:07 +0100 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] disas/libvixl: Fix VIXL_FALLTHROUGH macro for QEMU List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Weil Cc: QEMU Developer , qemu-arm , Richard Henderson On 15 May 2018 at 14:13, Stefan Weil wrote: > This is fixed in upstream vixl, in fact: > > https://git.linaro.org/arm/vixl.git/commit/?id=de326f850f736c3a337fda52845ed3d2e620cc02 > > That fix will work for the moment, but is not sufficient for the future > because it only supports gcc 7.x, but not gcc 8.x or later: > > +#elif __GNUC__ == 7 > > How do we proceed with the code in QEMU? Do you have a plan to update the > vixl code? As vixl is obviously no longer maintained on GitHub, I am not > sure whom I could contact. The github page points you to the linaro repo which is the new upstream. That said, I think we're planning to deprecate vixl now we have the capstone support. Richard, what's the status here? Could we just remove the vixl code now? > And what about my other question / suggestion: > > "I suggest to add and use a similar macro QEMU_FALLTHROUGH() for the rest of > the code and can provide a patch if that's fine for everyone." > > gcc gives lots of fallthrough warnings, and many code locations don't > contain a comment stating that the fall through is fine. I guess that having the compiler check is better than finding them later with coverity. It's a shame gcc doesn't support the standard mechanism of using /* fallthrough */ to mark these, though. thanks -- PMM