On 24 June 2015 at 19:09, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote:
> s/set-pc/set_pc/
>
> Am 24.06.2015 um 05:19 schrieb Peter Crosthwaite:
>> Add a wrapper around the CPUClass::set_pc() hook.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Crosthwaite <crosthwaite.pe...@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> changed since v2:
>> drop "qom" from commit message subject.
>> Add () to functions in commit messages.
>> Drop error argument
>> ---
>> include/qom/cpu.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>
> Queuing on qom-cpu-next with the following change:
>
> --- a/include/qom/cpu.h
> +++ b/include/qom/cpu.h
> @@ -604,16 +604,14 @@ static inline void cpu_unaligned_access(CPUState
> *cpu, vaddr addr,
> * @cpu: The CPU to set the program counter for.
> * @addr: Program counter value.
> *
> - * Set the program counter for a CPU. If there is no available
> implementation
> - * no action occurs.
> + * Sets the program counter for a CPU.
> */
> static inline void cpu_set_pc(CPUState *cpu, vaddr addr)
> {
> CPUClass *cc = CPU_GET_CLASS(cpu);
>
> - if (cc->set_pc) {
> - cc->set_pc(cpu, addr);
> - }
> + g_assert(cc->set_pc != NULL);
> + cc->set_pc(cpu, addr);
> }
Do we need this assert? If it would have fired
then we'll just crash immediately calling the null pointer,
so it's not like it's guarding against a more subtle failure
at a later point...
-- PMM
