On 24/11/2017 11:07, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 23 November 2017 at 22:08, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 22/11/2017 13:14, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>> We do this all of the time for more regular tests that are obviously >>>> compile-time. I am a really big fan of this, because it makes sure that >>>> the >>>> (usually 32-bit) else branch continues to compile. >>> I'm happy with code that is "we assume the compiler is going to >>> be sensible here so we don't have to use #ifdefs in the name >>> of performance". I just don't think we should write code that >>> can't compile at all if the compiler happens to not identify >>> the codepath as dead. There's no guarantee by the compiler >>> that it's going to do that. >> There's plenty of cases where "if (kvm_enabled())" code would fail to >> link if the compiler didn't do that optimization. > > I think that's a step less weird than "assert(kvm_enabled())", > but I tend to think of that kind of thing as "if the compiler > ever did decide not to link it we'd add missing stub functions".
I'll take a look at moving all the notdirty_* stuff under #ifdef CONFIG_TCG then, for now we can proceed with Juan's patch. Thanks, Paolo
