diff mbox series

[v2,03/22] target/arm/hvf: Clean up local variable shadowing

Message ID 20230904161235.84651-4-philmd@linaro.org
State New
Headers show
Series (few more) Steps towards enabling -Wshadow | expand

Commit Message

Philippe Mathieu-Daudé Sept. 4, 2023, 4:12 p.m. UTC
Per Peter Maydell analysis [*]:

  The hvf_vcpu_exec() function is not documented, but in practice
  its caller expects it to return either EXCP_DEBUG (for "this was
  a guest debug exception you need to deal with") or something else
  (presumably the intention being 0 for OK).

  The hvf_sysreg_read() and hvf_sysreg_write() functions are also not
  documented, but they return 0 on success, or 1 for a completely
  unrecognized sysreg where we've raised the UNDEF exception (but
  not if we raised an UNDEF exception for an unrecognized GIC sysreg --
  I think this is a bug). We use this return value to decide whether
  we need to advance the PC past the insn or not. It's not the same
  as the return value we want to return from hvf_vcpu_exec().

  Retain the variable as locally scoped but give it a name that
  doesn't clash with the other function-scoped variable.

This fixes:

  target/arm/hvf/hvf.c:1936:13: error: declaration shadows a local variable [-Werror,-Wshadow]
        int ret = 0;
            ^
  target/arm/hvf/hvf.c:1807:9: note: previous declaration is here
    int ret;
        ^
[*] https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/CAFEAcA_e+fU6JKtS+W63wr9cCJ6btu_hT_ydZWOwC0kBkDYYYQ@mail.gmail.com/

Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
---
Peter, feel free to alter the commit description if it doesn't
sound right.
---
 target/arm/hvf/hvf.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Comments

Peter Maydell Sept. 8, 2023, 12:26 p.m. UTC | #1
On Mon, 4 Sept 2023 at 17:12, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Per Peter Maydell analysis [*]:
>
>   The hvf_vcpu_exec() function is not documented, but in practice
>   its caller expects it to return either EXCP_DEBUG (for "this was
>   a guest debug exception you need to deal with") or something else
>   (presumably the intention being 0 for OK).
>
>   The hvf_sysreg_read() and hvf_sysreg_write() functions are also not
>   documented, but they return 0 on success, or 1 for a completely
>   unrecognized sysreg where we've raised the UNDEF exception (but
>   not if we raised an UNDEF exception for an unrecognized GIC sysreg --
>   I think this is a bug). We use this return value to decide whether
>   we need to advance the PC past the insn or not. It's not the same
>   as the return value we want to return from hvf_vcpu_exec().
>
>   Retain the variable as locally scoped but give it a name that
>   doesn't clash with the other function-scoped variable.
>
> This fixes:
>
>   target/arm/hvf/hvf.c:1936:13: error: declaration shadows a local variable [-Werror,-Wshadow]
>         int ret = 0;
>             ^
>   target/arm/hvf/hvf.c:1807:9: note: previous declaration is here
>     int ret;
>         ^
> [*] https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/CAFEAcA_e+fU6JKtS+W63wr9cCJ6btu_hT_ydZWOwC0kBkDYYYQ@mail.gmail.com/
>
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
> ---

Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>

thanks
-- PMM
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c b/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c
index 486f90be1d..0715f8a01c 100644
--- a/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c
+++ b/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c
@@ -1933,16 +1933,16 @@  int hvf_vcpu_exec(CPUState *cpu)
         uint32_t rt = (syndrome >> 5) & 0x1f;
         uint32_t reg = syndrome & SYSREG_MASK;
         uint64_t val;
-        int ret = 0;
+        int sysreg_ret = 0;
 
         if (isread) {
-            ret = hvf_sysreg_read(cpu, reg, rt);
+            sysreg_ret = hvf_sysreg_read(cpu, reg, rt);
         } else {
             val = hvf_get_reg(cpu, rt);
-            ret = hvf_sysreg_write(cpu, reg, val);
+            sysreg_ret = hvf_sysreg_write(cpu, reg, val);
         }
 
-        advance_pc = !ret;
+        advance_pc = !sysreg_ret;
         break;
     }
     case EC_WFX_TRAP: