On 9/2/20 11:11 AM, Greg Kurz wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:08:01 +0200
> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> This variable is used once in an assertion. Remove single
>> declaration and access directly in the assert().
>>
>> See in "qemu/osdep.h":
>>
>> * [...] disable assertion is not
>> * supported upstream so the risk is all yours. Meanwhile, please
>> * submit patches to remove any side-effects inside an assertion, or
>> * fixing error handling that should use Error instead of assert.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> util/qsp.c | 4 +---
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/util/qsp.c b/util/qsp.c
>> index 7d5147f1b20..1db044ecedd 100644
>> --- a/util/qsp.c
>> +++ b/util/qsp.c
>> @@ -560,9 +560,7 @@ static void qsp_iter_diff(void *p, uint32_t hash, void
>> *htp)
>>
>> /* No point in reporting an empty entry */
>> if (new->n_acqs == 0 && new->ns == 0) {
>> - bool removed = qht_remove(ht, new, hash);
>> -
>> - g_assert(removed);
>> + g_assert(qht_remove(ht, new, hash));
>
> Urgh... this is doing exactly the opposite of the "qemu/osdep.h"
> recommandations above. We still want to remove new from the
> hash table even if QEMU was built without assertions.
Oops you are right :/
>
>> g_free(new);
>> }
>> }
>
