On 30 July 2012 17:04, <blauwir...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> > > err was uninitalized, it's not OK to use |=. Spotted by Clang
"uninitialized" (feel free to just fix typo on commit). > compiler. > > Fix by replacing |= by =. > > Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> > --- > linux-user/signal.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/linux-user/signal.c b/linux-user/signal.c > index 97f30d9..3d6b5df 100644 > --- a/linux-user/signal.c > +++ b/linux-user/signal.c > @@ -2061,7 +2061,7 @@ restore_fpu_state(CPUSPARCState *env, > qemu_siginfo_fpu_t *fpu) > err = __copy_from_user(&env->fpr[0], &fpu->si_float_regs[0], > (sizeof(unsigned long) * 32)); > #endif > - err |= __get_user(env->fsr, &fpu->si_fsr); > + err = __get_user(env->fsr, &fpu->si_fsr); > #if 0 > err |= __get_user(current->thread.fpqdepth, &fpu->si_fpqdepth); > if (current->thread.fpqdepth != 0) This will need changing again if we ever fix the #if 0-d out code in this function, but I guess that will be obvious to whoever does that. Incidentally, __get_user() can never fail [we catch unreadable memory earlier when wo do the lock_user_struct] so you could also just not do anything with its return value. Some of the other targets rely on this in their signal save/restore code. I think the use of the return value is mostly in code that was copy-and-pasted from the Linux kernel (which does use a __get_user() that can fail). Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> -- PMM
