On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 at 12:15, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Reported by GCC9 when building with -Wimplicit-fallthrough=2: > > target/arm/helper.c: In function ‘arm_cpu_do_interrupt_aarch32_hyp’: > target/arm/helper.c:7958:14: error: this statement may fall through > [-Werror=implicit-fallthrough=] > 7958 | addr = 0x14; > | ~~~~~^~~~~~ > target/arm/helper.c:7959:5: note: here > 7959 | default: > | ^~~~~~~ > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > > Fixes: b9bc21ff9f9 > Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> > --- > target/arm/helper.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/target/arm/helper.c b/target/arm/helper.c > index 20f8728be1..b74c23a9bc 100644 > --- a/target/arm/helper.c > +++ b/target/arm/helper.c > @@ -7956,6 +7956,7 @@ static void arm_cpu_do_interrupt_aarch32_hyp(CPUState > *cs) > break; > case EXCP_HYP_TRAP: > addr = 0x14; > + break; > default: > cpu_abort(cs, "Unhandled exception 0x%x\n", cs->exception_index); > }
I think this is right, but EXCP_HYP_TRAP is a bit odd -- we appear to use this only for the case of "SMC instruction is trapped from NS EL1 to EL2 by HCR.TSC". I was expecting more traps-to-EL2 to use this EXCP_ variable... Mostly we seem to use EXCP_UDEF, eg for CP_ACCESS_TRAP_UNCATEGORIZED_EL2 coprocessor/sysreg accesses: this has the same behaviour as EXCP_HYP_TRAP as long as we know we are going from an EL below 2 to EL2. Which I think we could also use in the one place we use EXCP_HYP_TRAP; or we could make wider use of EXCP_HYP_TRAP, since feeding everything through EXCP_UDEF is rather confusing. Anyway, for 4.1 we should do this. Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> thanks -- PMM