On Thursday 23 July 2009, Andreas Fritiofson wrote:
> I noticed there are a few checks for (rt == 0xf) even though that case
> is handled with an early return at the top of the function.
>
> Maybe those checks should just go?
Yes, they should. They're leftovers.
> /Andreas
>
> Index: src/target/arm_disassembler.c
> ===================================================================
> --- src/target/arm_disassembler.c (revision 2561)
> +++ src/target/arm_disassembler.c (working copy)
> @@ -3523,8 +3523,6 @@
> if ((opcode & (1 << 23)) == 0) {
> if (rn == 0xf) {
> ldrh_literal:
> - if (rt == 0xf)
> - return ERROR_INVALID_ARGUMENTS;
> immed = opcode & 0xfff;
> address = thumb_alignpc4(address);
> if (opcode & (1 << 23))
> @@ -3535,8 +3533,6 @@
> sign, rt, address);
> return ERROR_OK;
> }
> - if (rt == 0xf)
> - return ERROR_INVALID_ARGUMENTS;
> if (op2 == 0) {
> int rm = opcode & 0xf;
>
> @@ -3574,12 +3570,11 @@
> } else {
> if (rn == 0xf)
> goto ldrh_literal;
> - if (rt != 0x0f) {
> - immed = opcode & 0xfff;
> - sprintf(cp, "LDR%sH.W\tr%d, [r%d, #%d]\t; %#6.6x",
> - sign, rt, rn, immed, immed);
> - return ERROR_OK;
> - }
> +
> + immed = opcode & 0xfff;
> + sprintf(cp, "LDR%sH.W\tr%d, [r%d, #%d]\t; %#6.6x",
> + sign, rt, rn, immed, immed);
> + return ERROR_OK;
> }
>
> return ERROR_INVALID_ARGUMENTS;
>
>
_______________________________________________
Openocd-development mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
