On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 03:00:15PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 09/27/2012 01:37 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > >> > I don't agree with SIDE_EFFECTS implying exceptions. How can "br" cause > >> > an > >> > exception? Or for that matter "st_i32", recalling that we're not storing > >> > to guest memory. > > That's exactly why SIDE_EFFECTS has been removed from this op in the > > previous patch. > > Well, you removed it from br, but not st.
Oh correct. st doesn't need one as it has zero output arguments, so it won't be removed. > > I think it implies exception, because I don't see why an op shouldn't be > > removed otherwise (remember ops without outputs are never removed). > > In which case, because the non-qemu store insns cannot raise exceptions, > there ought to be exactly zero instances of TCG_OPF_SIDE_EFFECTS remaining. > At which point we simply ought to remove it. > I don't understand, the qemu/load store still need to keep this TCG_OPF_SIDE_EFFECTS. Even a load to a dead output argument might trigger a TLB miss exception, and thus should be fixed. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
