在 2013-04-10三的 11:54 +0200，Paolo Bonzini写道： > 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?
absolutely yes. > ). 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. OK, I won't change here for next post. Thanks!
