Philippe Mathieu-Daudé writes:
> On 6/3/20 2:46 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> On 6/3/20 1:24 PM, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>> There is no particular reason why you can't have a watchpoint in TCG
>>> that covers a large chunk of the address space. We could be clever
>>> about it but these cases
On 6/3/20 2:46 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 6/3/20 1:24 PM, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> There is no particular reason why you can't have a watchpoint in TCG
>> that covers a large chunk of the address space. We could be clever
>> about it but these cases are pretty rare and we can assume the us
On 6/3/20 4:24 AM, Alex Bennée wrote:
> There is no particular reason why you can't have a watchpoint in TCG
> that covers a large chunk of the address space. We could be clever
> about it but these cases are pretty rare and we can assume the user
> will expect a little performance degradation.
>
On 6/3/20 1:24 PM, Alex Bennée wrote:
> There is no particular reason why you can't have a watchpoint in TCG
> that covers a large chunk of the address space. We could be clever
> about it but these cases are pretty rare and we can assume the user
> will expect a little performance degradation.
>
There is no particular reason why you can't have a watchpoint in TCG
that covers a large chunk of the address space. We could be clever
about it but these cases are pretty rare and we can assume the user
will expect a little performance degradation.
NB: In my testing gdb will silently squash a wat
