On 24/03/16 18:36, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> diff --git a/translate-all.c b/translate-all.c
>> > index 8b4bfa713bf7..56c77a72773d 100644
>> > --- a/translate-all.c
>> > +++ b/translate-all.c
>> > @@ -962,25 +962,21 @@ static inline void tb_reset_jump(TranslationBlock
>> > *tb, int n)
>> > /* remove any jumps to the TB */
>> > static inline void tb_jmp_unlink(TranslationBlock *tb)
>> > {
>> > - uintptr_t tb1, tb2;
>> > + TranslationBlock *tb1;
>> > + uintptr_t *ptb;
>> > unsigned int n1;
>> >
>> > - tb1 = tb->jmp_list_first;
>> > + ptb = &tb->jmp_list_first;
>> > for (;;) {
>> > - TranslationBlock *tmp_tb;
>> > - n1 = tb1 & 3;
>> > + n1 = *ptb & 3;
>> > + tb1 = (TranslationBlock *)(*ptb & ~3);
> I would hope the compiler saw through the duplicate indirect accesses
> but maybe:
>
> uintptr_t *ptb, ntb;
>
> and
>
> ntb = *ptb;
> n1 = ntb & 3;
> tb1 = (TranslationBlock *)(ntb & ~3);
>
> would be clearer?
>
Why not? :) Will do this.
Thanks,
Sergey
