Am 30.07.2012 18:13, schrieb Peter Maydell: > 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.
You mean the #endif part? Would an explicit err = 0 make things better? Andreas > > 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 -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
