On 24 June 2015 at 03:50, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >> I believe this argument will probably go away; otherwise this should've >> been &error_abort or something instead of NULL. >> > > I'm not sure. As I don't see what is catching the case of a gdb 'c' > packet for a CPU that doesn't implement set_pc. I'd rather preserve > the existing behaviour, and have the qom wrapper do nothing if it is > not implemented.
Well, this is one reason why every CPU needs to implement set_pc... -- PMM
