Il 10/04/2013 09:55, li guang ha scritto: > 在 2013-04-10三的 09:44 +0200，Paolo Bonzini写道： >> Il 10/04/2013 05:30, liguang ha scritto: >>> Signed-off-by: liguang <lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> >>> --- >>> target-arm/translate.c | 17 ++++++++--------- >>> target-i386/translate.c | 17 ++++++++--------- >>> target-mips/translate.c | 16 ++++++++-------- >>> 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/target-arm/translate.c b/target-arm/translate.c >>> index 35a21be..c0c080d 100644 >>> --- a/target-arm/translate.c >>> +++ b/target-arm/translate.c >>> @@ -9806,11 +9806,10 @@ static inline void >>> gen_intermediate_code_internal(CPUARMState *env, >>> cpu_M0 = tcg_temp_new_i64(); >>> next_page_start = (pc_start & TARGET_PAGE_MASK) + TARGET_PAGE_SIZE; >>> lj = -1; >>> - num_insns = 0; >> >> Nack. Did you even try to read what I and Wei-Ren Chen were trying to >> tell you? >> > > well, you ask if I tested, and I answer yes, > you doubt if this line really could be removed, > and I said compiler will not complain this.
I don't care if the compiler doesn't complain (though I doubt it doesn't; are you using --enable-debug?). It is wrong. You are removing the initialization of num_insns. The only instruction that modifies it is now "num_insns++". That is wrong, period. Even if GCC ends up producing code that works, what happens when you access uninitialized memory is undefined. > what should I do? > Isn't it enough? > did you read my answer for your comment? You didn't reply to this message from Wei-Ren Chen: >> I think 'max_insns = tb->cflags & CF_COUNT_MASK;' is enough >> to feed compiler. > > num_insns and max_insns are two different variables, right? So this > assignment does not do anything with num_insns. So yes, I read your answers and no, they were not enough. Paolo
