| Message ID | 1360521050-29680-2-git-send-email-rth@twiddle.net |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 2013-02-10 10:30, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Deleting these first makes the next patch much easier to read.
This doesn't cause any sort of compilation failure because we
have not yet enabled n32/n64 compilation. This is dead code.
r~
On 11 February 2013 16:02, Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> wrote: > On 2013-02-10 10:30, Richard Henderson wrote: >> >> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> > > > Deleting these first makes the next patch much easier to read. > This doesn't cause any sort of compilation failure because we > have not yet enabled n32/n64 compilation. This is dead code. Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> -- PMM
Am 11.02.2013 17:02, schrieb Richard Henderson: > On 2013-02-10 10:30, Richard Henderson wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> > > Deleting these first makes the next patch much easier to read. > This doesn't cause any sort of compilation failure because we > have not yet enabled n32/n64 compilation. This is dead code. We have it enabled for openSUSE despite the #warning (anyone can enable it via --target-list, so it's not entirely dead code), but since you're fixing it later in the series that seems fine with me. Ideally you could squash patches 1+2 so that there is no regression. I'll try putting these into our package's patch queue later today. Thanks for working on fixing this! Andreas
On 2013-02-11 09:05, Andreas Färber wrote: > We have it enabled for openSUSE despite the #warning (anyone can enable > it via --target-list, so it's not entirely dead code), but since you're > fixing it later in the series that seems fine with me. Ideally you could > squash patches 1+2 so that there is no regression. I hadn't thought of using --target-list + --disable-werror as a means of getting these compiled. If folks think these two should be squashed in order to enable bisection with those configure options, I certainly can. r~
diff --git a/linux-user/signal.c b/linux-user/signal.c index 67c2311..b2f1d29 100644 --- a/linux-user/signal.c +++ b/linux-user/signal.c @@ -2438,64 +2438,6 @@ void sparc64_get_context(CPUSPARCState *env) force_sig(TARGET_SIGSEGV); } #endif -#elif defined(TARGET_ABI_MIPSN64) - -# warning signal handling not implemented - -static void setup_frame(int sig, struct target_sigaction *ka, - target_sigset_t *set, CPUMIPSState *env) -{ - fprintf(stderr, "setup_frame: not implemented\n"); -} - -static void setup_rt_frame(int sig, struct target_sigaction *ka, - target_siginfo_t *info, - target_sigset_t *set, CPUMIPSState *env) -{ - fprintf(stderr, "setup_rt_frame: not implemented\n"); -} - -long do_sigreturn(CPUMIPSState *env) -{ - fprintf(stderr, "do_sigreturn: not implemented\n"); - return -TARGET_ENOSYS; -} - -long do_rt_sigreturn(CPUMIPSState *env) -{ - fprintf(stderr, "do_rt_sigreturn: not implemented\n"); - return -TARGET_ENOSYS; -} - -#elif defined(TARGET_ABI_MIPSN32) - -# warning signal handling not implemented - -static void setup_frame(int sig, struct target_sigaction *ka, - target_sigset_t *set, CPUMIPSState *env) -{ - fprintf(stderr, "setup_frame: not implemented\n"); -} - -static void setup_rt_frame(int sig, struct target_sigaction *ka, - target_siginfo_t *info, - target_sigset_t *set, CPUMIPSState *env) -{ - fprintf(stderr, "setup_rt_frame: not implemented\n"); -} - -long do_sigreturn(CPUMIPSState *env) -{ - fprintf(stderr, "do_sigreturn: not implemented\n"); - return -TARGET_ENOSYS; -} - -long do_rt_sigreturn(CPUMIPSState *env) -{ - fprintf(stderr, "do_rt_sigreturn: not implemented\n"); - return -TARGET_ENOSYS; -} - #elif defined(TARGET_ABI_MIPSO32) struct target_sigcontext {
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> --- linux-user/signal.c | 58 ----------------------------------------------------- 1 file changed, 58 deletions(-)