On 30 August 2017 at 19:02, Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@xilinx.com> wrote: > Instead of using the hardcoded (MemTxAttrs){0} for no memory attributes > let's use the already defined MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED macro instead. > > Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@xilinx.com> > --- > > target/xtensa/op_helper.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/target/xtensa/op_helper.c b/target/xtensa/op_helper.c > index 519fbeddd6..3d990c0caa 100644 > --- a/target/xtensa/op_helper.c > +++ b/target/xtensa/op_helper.c > @@ -1025,11 +1025,11 @@ void HELPER(ule_s)(CPUXtensaState *env, uint32_t br, > float32 a, float32 b) > uint32_t HELPER(rer)(CPUXtensaState *env, uint32_t addr) > { > return address_space_ldl(env->address_space_er, addr, > - (MemTxAttrs){0}, NULL); > + MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED, NULL); > } > > void HELPER(wer)(CPUXtensaState *env, uint32_t data, uint32_t addr) > { > address_space_stl(env->address_space_er, addr, data, > - (MemTxAttrs){0}, NULL); > + MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED, NULL); > }
Might be worth noting in the commit that this is technically a change of behaviour, because MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED sets the 'unspecified' field to 1 whereas {0} doesn't. I don't think anything actually checks that field, though. thanks -- PMM