On 7/22/26 21:42, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
On 7/20/2026 12:24 PM, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
The existing compare function only make sure that we list cpus with PVR
order. However, we never compare cpu names.
As a result, while cpus are grouped per PVR, the order within a group is
non deterministic. Depending on QOM type initialization order, we get
different results for -cpu help.
For instance, previous output could be:
Available CPUs:
755_v1.0 PVR 00083100
745_v1.0 PVR 00083100
755_v1.1 PVR 00083101
745_v1.1 PVR 00083101
While a sorted output should be:
Available CPUs:
745_v1.0 PVR 00083100
755_v1.0 PVR 00083100
745_v1.1 PVR 00083101
755_v1.1 PVR 00083101
Fix it by comparing cpu names to have a stable result.
This allows us to record and compare various command line results across
versions to make sure we didn't break anything while working on
single-binary.
Signed-off-by: Pierrick Bouvier <[email protected]>
---
target/ppc/cpu_init.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/target/ppc/cpu_init.c b/target/ppc/cpu_init.c
index f404c7e549d..3443dbeeb01 100644
--- a/target/ppc/cpu_init.c
+++ b/target/ppc/cpu_init.c
@@ -7130,7 +7130,7 @@ static gint ppc_cpu_list_compare(gconstpointer a,
gconstpointer b, gpointer d)
} else if (pcc_a->pvr > pcc_b->pvr) {
return 1;
} else {
- return 0;
+ return strcmp(name_a, name_b);
}
}
}
Any chance one of ppc maintainer could send this for the upcoming release?
This would help us to compare command lines across QEMU versions to make
]sure there is no regression.
Hi Pierrick,
Thanks for the patch. Looks good to me.
Since this a minor user visible change and also not a regression fix,
IMO this would be a better candidate for 11.2 ?
Regards,
Chinmay
Regards,
Pierrick
