On 30.08.2017 22:45, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 30.08.2017 19:05, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> The assert should hold in both scenarios. >> >> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> >> --- >> target/s390x/interrupt.c | 3 +-- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/target/s390x/interrupt.c b/target/s390x/interrupt.c >> index 058e219fe5..79bab5e2f3 100644 >> --- a/target/s390x/interrupt.c >> +++ b/target/s390x/interrupt.c >> @@ -32,9 +32,8 @@ static void tcg_s390_program_interrupt(CPUS390XState *env, >> uint32_t code, >> #ifdef CONFIG_TCG >> trigger_pgm_exception(env, code, ilen); >> cpu_loop_exit(CPU(s390_env_get_cpu(env))); >> -#else >> - g_assert_not_reached(); >> #endif >> + g_assert_not_reached(); >> } > > Not sure if this really makes sense ... cpu_loop_exit() is already > marked with QEMU_NORETURN, so a know-it-all new version of GCC might > complain one day if there's other code after this call. I'd better keep > it the way it is.
Good point, I'll drop this patch. Thanks! > > Thomas > -- Thanks, David
