On 11/20/23 02:20, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
(Cc'ing Eric)
On 20/11/23 10:28, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 07:34:58PM -0600, Dan Hoffman wrote:
As far as I can tell, yes. Any optimization level above O0 does not have this
issue (on this version of Clang, at least)
Aha, this is with -O0. That makes sense.
But then, why the other cases aren't problematic?
$ git grep -E ' (&&|\|\|) !?kvm_enabled'
hw/arm/boot.c:1228: assert(!(info->secure_board_setup && kvm_enabled()));
hw/i386/microvm.c:270: (mms->rtc == ON_OFF_AUTO_AUTO && !kvm_enabled()))
{
hw/i386/x86.c:135: if (x86ms->apic_id_limit > 255 && kvm_enabled() &&
hw/mips/cps.c:62: return is_mt && !kvm_enabled();
system/physmem.c:760: assert(asidx == 0 || !kvm_enabled());
target/arm/cpu64.c:288: if (value && kvm_enabled() &&
!kvm_arm_sve_supported()) {
target/i386/cpu.c:7264: if (requested_lbr_fmt && kvm_enabled()) {
target/ppc/kvm.c:345: if (!cpu->hash64_opts || !kvm_enabled()) {
target/s390x/cpu_models.c:574: if (xcc->kvm_required && !kvm_enabled()) {
target/s390x/cpu_models_sysemu.c:124: if (S390_CPU_CLASS(oc)->kvm_required &&
!kvm_enabled()) {
Because those are very simple tests that do not reference kvm-specific stuff,
unlike...
> - if (x86ms->apic_id_limit > 255 && kvm_enabled() &&
> + if (kvm_enabled() && x86ms->apic_id_limit > 255 &&
> (!kvm_irqchip_in_kernel() || !kvm_enable_x2apic())) {
... these function calls.
r~
