On 30.08.2017 19:05, David Hildenbrand wrote: > The assert should hold in both scenarios. > > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> > --- > target/s390x/interrupt.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/target/s390x/interrupt.c b/target/s390x/interrupt.c > index 058e219fe5..79bab5e2f3 100644 > --- a/target/s390x/interrupt.c > +++ b/target/s390x/interrupt.c > @@ -32,9 +32,8 @@ static void tcg_s390_program_interrupt(CPUS390XState *env, > uint32_t code, > #ifdef CONFIG_TCG > trigger_pgm_exception(env, code, ilen); > cpu_loop_exit(CPU(s390_env_get_cpu(env))); > -#else > - g_assert_not_reached(); > #endif > + g_assert_not_reached(); > }
Not sure if this really makes sense ... cpu_loop_exit() is already marked with QEMU_NORETURN, so a know-it-all new version of GCC might complain one day if there's other code after this call. I'd better keep it the way it is. Thomas
