On Mon, 4 Sept 2023 at 17:12, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Per Peter Maydell analysis [*]: > > The hvf_vcpu_exec() function is not documented, but in practice > its caller expects it to return either EXCP_DEBUG (for "this was > a guest debug exception you need to deal with") or something else > (presumably the intention being 0 for OK). > > The hvf_sysreg_read() and hvf_sysreg_write() functions are also not > documented, but they return 0 on success, or 1 for a completely > unrecognized sysreg where we've raised the UNDEF exception (but > not if we raised an UNDEF exception for an unrecognized GIC sysreg -- > I think this is a bug). We use this return value to decide whether > we need to advance the PC past the insn or not. It's not the same > as the return value we want to return from hvf_vcpu_exec(). > > Retain the variable as locally scoped but give it a name that > doesn't clash with the other function-scoped variable. > > This fixes: > > target/arm/hvf/hvf.c:1936:13: error: declaration shadows a local variable > [-Werror,-Wshadow] > int ret = 0; > ^ > target/arm/hvf/hvf.c:1807:9: note: previous declaration is here > int ret; > ^ > [*] > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/cafeaca_e+fu6jkts+w63wr9ccj6btu_ht_ydzwowc0kbkdy...@mail.gmail.com/ > > Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org> > ---
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> thanks -- PMM
