Re: [RFC PATCH] target/ppc/mmu: Silent maybe-uninitialized error in ppc_hash64_xlate()

2024-02-25 Thread Thomas Huth 

On 23/02/2024 09.32, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:

Initialize apshift to avoid a maybe-uninitialized error:

   C compiler for the host machine: cc -m64 -mbig-endian (gcc 13.2.0 "cc (Debian 
13.2.0-10) 13.2.0")
   C linker for the host machine: cc -m64 -mbig-endian ld.bfd 2.41.90.20240115
   Host machine cpu family: ppc64
   Host machine cpu: ppc64
   ...
   target/ppc/mmu-hash64.c: In function 'ppc_hash64_xlate':
   target/ppc/mmu-hash64.c:1154:15: error: 'apshift' may be used uninitialized 
[-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
1154 | *raddrp = deposit64(pte.pte1 & HPTE64_R_RPN, 0, apshift, eaddr);
 |   ^
   target/ppc/mmu-hash64.c:947:14: note: 'apshift' was declared here
 947 | unsigned apshift;
 |  ^~~

The call chain is:

   ppc_hash64_xlate -> ppc_hash64_htab_lookup -> ppc_hash64_pteg_search

ppc_hash64_pteg_search() either sets *pshift or returns -1,

ppc_hash64_htab_lookup() returns if ppc_hash64_pteg_search()
returned -1:

   1068:ptex = ppc_hash64_htab_lookup(cpu, slb, eaddr, , );
   1069:if (ptex == -1) {
   1070:if (!guest_visible) {
   1071:return false;
   1072:}
...
   1087:return false;

So IIUC this "uninitialized use" can not happens.

Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 
---
I had this in an old branch (2 months old) I just rebased,
and don't get why nobody else got this error yet.


That's weird, indeed. Did you maybe compile without optimizations when you 
hit the error?


 Thomas

[RFC PATCH] target/ppc/mmu: Silent maybe-uninitialized error in ppc_hash64_xlate()

2024-02-23 Thread Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 
Initialize apshift to avoid a maybe-uninitialized error:

  C compiler for the host machine: cc -m64 -mbig-endian (gcc 13.2.0 "cc (Debian 
13.2.0-10) 13.2.0")
  C linker for the host machine: cc -m64 -mbig-endian ld.bfd 2.41.90.20240115
  Host machine cpu family: ppc64
  Host machine cpu: ppc64
  ...
  target/ppc/mmu-hash64.c: In function 'ppc_hash64_xlate':
  target/ppc/mmu-hash64.c:1154:15: error: 'apshift' may be used uninitialized 
[-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
   1154 | *raddrp = deposit64(pte.pte1 & HPTE64_R_RPN, 0, apshift, eaddr);
|   ^
  target/ppc/mmu-hash64.c:947:14: note: 'apshift' was declared here
947 | unsigned apshift;
|  ^~~

The call chain is:

  ppc_hash64_xlate -> ppc_hash64_htab_lookup -> ppc_hash64_pteg_search

ppc_hash64_pteg_search() either sets *pshift or returns -1,

ppc_hash64_htab_lookup() returns if ppc_hash64_pteg_search()
returned -1:

  1068:ptex = ppc_hash64_htab_lookup(cpu, slb, eaddr, , );
  1069:if (ptex == -1) {
  1070:if (!guest_visible) {
  1071:return false;
  1072:}
   ...
  1087:return false;

So IIUC this "uninitialized use" can not happens.

Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 
---
I had this in an old branch (2 months old) I just rebased,
and don't get why nobody else got this error yet.
---
 target/ppc/mmu-hash64.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/target/ppc/mmu-hash64.c b/target/ppc/mmu-hash64.c
index d645c0bb94..cd1e0c13c8 100644
--- a/target/ppc/mmu-hash64.c
+++ b/target/ppc/mmu-hash64.c
@@ -944,7 +944,7 @@ bool ppc_hash64_xlate(PowerPCCPU *cpu, vaddr eaddr, 
MMUAccessType access_type,
 CPUPPCState *env = >env;
 ppc_slb_t vrma_slbe;
 ppc_slb_t *slb;
-unsigned apshift;
+unsigned apshift = 0;
 hwaddr ptex;
 ppc_hash_pte64_t pte;
 int exec_prot, pp_prot, amr_prot, prot;
-- 
2.41.0