From: Laurent Vivier <laur...@vivier.eu>
Our safe_clock_nanosleep() returns -1 and updates errno.
We don't need to update the CRF bit in syscall.c because it will
be updated in ppc/cpu_loop.c as the return value is negative.
Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <laur...@vivier.eu>
Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org>
Message-Id: <20200722174612.2917566-3-laur...@vivier.eu>
---
linux-user/syscall.c | 7 -------
1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/linux-user/syscall.c b/linux-user/syscall.c
index 43a6e283961..f5c4f6b95db 100644
--- a/linux-user/syscall.c
+++ b/linux-user/syscall.c
@@ -11840,13 +11840,6 @@ static abi_long do_syscall1(void *cpu_env, int num,
abi_long arg1,
host_to_target_timespec(arg4, &ts);
}
-#if defined(TARGET_PPC)
- /* clock_nanosleep is odd in that it returns positive errno values.
- * On PPC, CR0 bit 3 should be set in such a situation. */
- if (ret && ret != -TARGET_ERESTARTSYS) {
- ((CPUPPCState *)cpu_env)->crf[0] |= 1;
- }
-#endif
return ret;
}
#endif
--
2.20.1
