On May 30, 2019 2:50 PM, "Richard Henderson" <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 5/30/19 6:26 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> -#define TCG_TARGET_HAS_cmpsel_vec 0 > >> +#define TCG_TARGET_HAS_cmpsel_vec -1 > > > > This is the only place where we define a TCG_TARGET_HAS_* macro > > to something other than 0 or 1, which means that Coverity > > complains (CID 1401702) when we use it in a logical boolean expression > > return have_vec && TCG_TARGET_HAS_cmpsel_vec; > > later on. > > > > Should it really be -1, or is this a typo for 1 ? > > It really should be -1. > See commit 25c012b4009256505be3430480954a0233de343e, > which contains the rationale. >
How about extending commit message so that it contains explanation for -1 introduced in this very patch allowing future developers not to need to reverse engineer whole git history to (maybe) find the explanation? Sincerely, Aleksandar > > r~ >
