> On Sep 14, 2021, at 11:27 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> wrote: > > On 9/14/21 7:13 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 16:53, Richard Henderson >> <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> >>> Version 3: Rebase and fix a minor patch conflict. >>> >>> >>> r~ >>> >>> >>> The following changes since commit c6f5e042d89e79206cd1ce5525d3df219f13c3cc: >>> >>> Merge remote-tracking branch >>> 'remotes/pmaydell/tags/pull-target-arm-20210913-3' into staging (2021-09-13 >>> 21:06:15 +0100) >>> >>> are available in the Git repository at: >>> >>> https://gitlab.com/rth7680/qemu.git tags/pull-tcg-20210914 >>> >>> for you to fetch changes up to a5b759b6dca7daf87fa5007a7f5784bf22f3830f: >>> >>> tcg/arm: More use of the TCGReg enum (2021-09-14 07:59:43 -0700) >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Fix translation race condition for user-only. >>> Fix tcg/i386 encoding for VPSLLVQ, VPSRLVQ. >>> Fix tcg/arm tcg_out_vec_op signature. >>> Fix tcg/ppc (32bit) build with clang. >>> Remove dupluate TCG_KICK_PERIOD definition. >>> Remove unused tcg_global_reg_new. >>> Restrict cpu_exec_interrupt and its callees to sysemu. >>> Cleanups for tcg/arm. >> >> This throws up new warnings on FreeBSD: >> >> ../src/bsd-user/main.c:148:1: warning: function declared 'noreturn' >> should not return [-Winvalid-noreturn] >> >> Unlike linux-user, where cpu_loop() is the direct implementation >> of the target-specific main loop, on bsd-user cpu_loop() seems >> to just call target_cpu_loop(). Since target_cpu_loop() isn't >> marked noreturn, the compiler complains about cpu_loop() being >> marked noreturn. > > Sorry, my bad. I ran this on Gitlab CI but now realize the > FreeBSD job is marked as "allow to fail" so I missed it :( > >> Easy fix would be to just drop the bsd-user part of >> "user: Mark cpu_loop() with noreturn attribute" I guess. >> Otherwise you could try marking all the target_cpu_loop() >> functions noreturn as well. > > Richard, can you drop the offending patch from your pull > request? Yes. I think that’s best. I’m wanting to reorg a bit here, but I have a number of architectures to plow through to do that… I’ll pick it up in my queue of things to do. Sorry for the hassles that the non-standard arrangement in bsd-user has. I’ll align them more closely going forward. Warner
