On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: > Am 24.06.2015 um 19:04 schrieb Peter Crosthwaite: >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> >> wrote: >>> 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... >>> >> >> Well. I guess it works for a common case where a continue doesn't >> change the PC? If the debugger doesn't change the PC the "c" should >> work even without a set_pc call so we don't want to assert on this >> valid use case. > > Guys, is there any target that does not implement set_pc today? If so, > which? I'd rather implement it than carry around the iffery and > resulting complications. > > I quickly counted 17 target-* in my tree and all 17 seemed to show up in > git-grep. Can you confirm? Didn't check the latest tilegx series. >
There are 17 targets and 18 sets by my count: $ git grep "set_pc.*=.*set_pc" target-* target-alpha/cpu.c: cc->set_pc = alpha_cpu_set_pc; target-arm/cpu.c: cc->set_pc = arm_cpu_set_pc; target-arm/cpu64.c: cc->set_pc = aarch64_cpu_set_pc; target-cris/cpu.c: cc->set_pc = cris_cpu_set_pc; target-i386/cpu.c: cc->set_pc = x86_cpu_set_pc; target-lm32/cpu.c: cc->set_pc = lm32_cpu_set_pc; target-m68k/cpu.c: cc->set_pc = m68k_cpu_set_pc; target-microblaze/cpu.c: cc->set_pc = mb_cpu_set_pc; target-mips/cpu.c: cc->set_pc = mips_cpu_set_pc; target-moxie/cpu.c: cc->set_pc = moxie_cpu_set_pc; target-openrisc/cpu.c: cc->set_pc = openrisc_cpu_set_pc; target-ppc/translate_init.c: cc->set_pc = ppc_cpu_set_pc; target-s390x/cpu.c: cc->set_pc = s390_cpu_set_pc; target-sh4/cpu.c: cc->set_pc = superh_cpu_set_pc; target-sparc/cpu.c: cc->set_pc = sparc_cpu_set_pc; target-tricore/cpu.c: cc->set_pc = tricore_cpu_set_pc; target-unicore32/cpu.c: cc->set_pc = uc32_cpu_set_pc; target-xtensa/cpu.c: cc->set_pc = xtensa_cpu_set_pc; ARM is doubled up. As long as no one else is missing a double up where there is not default set by a single base class we are OK. If there is a missing double up with a base class implementation, then there will be no change by your proposal anyway. Regards, Peter > Regards, > Andreas > > -- > SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany > GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton; HRB > 21284 (AG Nürnberg) >
