On 09/27/2012 01:37 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: >> > I don't agree with SIDE_EFFECTS implying exceptions. How can "br" cause an >> > exception? Or for that matter "st_i32", recalling that we're not storing >> > to guest memory. > That's exactly why SIDE_EFFECTS has been removed from this op in the > previous patch.
Well, you removed it from br, but not st. > I think it implies exception, because I don't see why an op shouldn't be > removed otherwise (remember ops without outputs are never removed). In which case, because the non-qemu store insns cannot raise exceptions, there ought to be exactly zero instances of TCG_OPF_SIDE_EFFECTS remaining. At which point we simply ought to remove it. r~
