On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 5:27 PM Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru> wrote:
>
> 31.10.2024 06:52, Alistair Francis wrote:
> > From: TANG Tiancheng <tangtiancheng....@alibaba-inc.com>
> ...
> > diff --git a/target/riscv/cpu.h b/target/riscv/cpu.h
> > index 1619c3acb6..a63a29744c 100644
> > --- a/target/riscv/cpu.h
> > +++ b/target/riscv/cpu.h
> > @@ -709,8 +709,11 @@ static inline RISCVMXL riscv_cpu_sxl(CPURISCVState
> > *env)
> > #ifdef CONFIG_USER_ONLY
> > return env->misa_mxl;
> > #else
> > - return get_field(env->mstatus, MSTATUS64_SXL);
> > + if (env->misa_mxl != MXL_RV32) {
> > + return get_field(env->mstatus, MSTATUS64_SXL);
> > + }
> > #endif
> > + return MXL_RV32;
> > }
>
> Shouldn't this last new 'return' be within the #else..#endif block?
It's currently functionally correct, but I see your point.
> The way it is now, the whole thing is quite confusing due to the
> other return in the #ifdef..#else block :)
>
> I'll send a trivial patch "fixing" this confusion if no one objects,
> or anyone else can do that.
No objections here :)
Alistair
>
> Thanks,
>
> /mjt
