On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 10:18, P J P <ppan...@redhat.com> wrote: > > +-- On Thu, 25 Jun 2020, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote --+ > | > @@ -196,7 +196,22 @@ static bool tz_ppc_dummy_accepts(void *opaque, > hwaddr addr, > | > g_assert_not_reached(); > | > | This is a shame we now have to fill the read/write handlers for > | unreachable code :( > | > | > +static uint64_t tz_ppc_dummy_read(void *opaque, hwaddr addr, unsigned > size) > | > | I'd instead use a clearer: > | g_assert_not_reached(); > | > | > +static void tz_ppc_dummy_write(void *opaque, hwaddr addr, > | > | Ditto: > | g_assert_not_reached(); > > This will likely be called in tz_ppc_dummy_accepts() above. Do we still want > to revise this patch? considering read/write callbacks are unreachable.
The point of g_assert_not_reached() is that it documents and asserts that the code is not reachable. If the read and write callbacks are unreachable (which they are) then having their bodies just be a call to g_assert_not_reached() is the best way to document that. thanks -- PMM
