On 26 July 2014 08:26, Stefan Weil <s...@weilnetz.de> wrote:
> Static code analyzers complain about a dubious & operation used for a
> boolean value. The code does not test the PSTATE_SP bit as it should.
>
> Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <s...@weilnetz.de>
> ---
>
> Hello Peter,
>
> I'm not sure whether the "!" is correct at all, because code and comment
> don't seem to match. But I am not an ARM expert, so please review.
>
> Thanks,
> Stefan
>
> target-arm/helper.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/target-arm/helper.c b/target-arm/helper.c
> index d343856..6ecaa61 100644
> --- a/target-arm/helper.c
> +++ b/target-arm/helper.c
> @@ -1853,7 +1853,7 @@ static uint64_t aa64_dczid_read(CPUARMState *env, const
> ARMCPRegInfo *ri)
>
> static CPAccessResult sp_el0_access(CPUARMState *env, const ARMCPRegInfo *ri)
> {
> - if (!env->pstate & PSTATE_SP) {
> + if (!(env->pstate & PSTATE_SP)) {
> /* Access to SP_EL0 is undefined if it's being used as
> * the stack pointer.
> */
> --
Applied to target-arm.next.
thanks
-- PMM
