On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The write_raw_cp_reg's value argument should be a uint64_t, since
> that's what all its callers hand it and what all the functions it
> calls take. A (harmless) typo meant we were accidentally declaring
> it as int64_t.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> target-arm/helper.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/target-arm/helper.c b/target-arm/helper.c
> index 577b060..06331dd 100644
> --- a/target-arm/helper.c
> +++ b/target-arm/helper.c
> @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ static uint64_t read_raw_cp_reg(CPUARMState *env, const ARMCPRegInfo *ri)
> }
>
> static void write_raw_cp_reg(CPUARMState *env, const ARMCPRegInfo *ri,
> - int64_t v)
> + uint64_t v)
> {
> /* Raw write of a coprocessor register (as needed for migration, etc).
> * Note that constant registers are treated as write-ignored; the
> --
> 1.8.5
>
>
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
