Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes:
> On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 17:23, Christophe de Dinechin
> <dinec...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 2020-05-26 at 20:51 CEST, Eric Blake wrote...
>> > diff --git a/hw/openrisc/openrisc_sim.c b/hw/openrisc/openrisc_sim.c
>> > index d08ce6181199..95011a8015b4 100644
>> > --- a/hw/openrisc/openrisc_sim.c
>> > +++ b/hw/openrisc/openrisc_sim.c
>> > @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ static void openrisc_sim_init(MachineState *machine)
>> > const char *kernel_filename = machine->kernel_filename;
>> > OpenRISCCPU *cpu = NULL;
>> > MemoryRegion *ram;
>> > - qemu_irq *cpu_irqs[2];
>> > + qemu_irq *cpu_irqs[2] = {};
>>
>> Why is the value [2] correct here? The loop that initializes loops over
>> machine->smp.cpus. Is it always less than 2 on this machine?
>
> Yes: openrisc_sim_machine_init() sets mc->max_cpus = 2.
> My suggestion of adding an assert() is essentially telling the
> compiler that indeed smp_cpus must always be in the range [1,2],
> which we can tell but it can't.
Do we have a proper patch for this on the list?
