On 2012-12-07 11:24, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 7 December 2012 01:25, liguang <lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: liguang <lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> target-i386/cpu.h | 15 +++++++++++++--
>> 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/target-i386/cpu.h b/target-i386/cpu.h
>> index 29245d1..3646128 100644
>> --- a/target-i386/cpu.h
>> +++ b/target-i386/cpu.h
>> @@ -996,9 +996,20 @@ int cpu_x86_handle_mmu_fault(CPUX86State *env,
>> target_ulong addr,
>> #define cpu_handle_mmu_fault cpu_x86_handle_mmu_fault
>> void cpu_x86_set_a20(CPUX86State *env, int a20_state);
>>
>> -static inline int hw_breakpoint_enabled(unsigned long dr7, int index)
>> +static inline bool hw_local_breakpoint_enabled(unsigned long dr7, int index)
>> {
>> - return (dr7 >> (index * 2)) & 3;
>> + return !(((dr7 >> (index * 2)) ^ 1) & 3);
>
> This is pretty confusing and I'm pretty sure the function is
> misnamed too. If we're checking "is local breakpoint enabled"
> then we only want to check one of the two enable bits, not both.
>
Yes, and I already asked to define the proper constants that allow
checking for local vs. global enable bit. They have to be used here
instead of all the magic & 3 or ^ 1 stuff.
BTW, there is no need for "converting" ("!!") the result of the (value &
mask) to bool, the compiler will do this already.
Jan
>
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline bool hw_global_breakpoint_enabled(unsigned long dr7, int
>> index)
>> +{
>> + return !!((dr7 >> (index * 2)) & 2);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline bool hw_breakpoint_enabled(unsigned long dr7, int index)
>> +{
>> + return (hw_global_breakpoint_enabled(dr7, index) ||
>> + hw_local_breakpoint_enabled(dr7, index));
>> }
>
> -- PMM
>
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
