[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] i386: fix breakpoints handling in icount mode
From: |
Frederic Konrad |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] i386: fix breakpoints handling in icount mode |
Date: |
Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:53:15 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 |
On 22/10/2014 13:38, Pavel Dovgalyuk wrote:
Hi Pavel,
This patch fixes instructions counting when execution is stopped on
breakpoint (e.g. set from gdb). Without a patch extra instruction is translated
and icount is incremented by invalid value (which equals to number of
executed instructions + 1).
Signed-off-by: Pavel Dovgalyuk <address@hidden>
---
target-i386/translate.c | 3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/target-i386/translate.c b/target-i386/translate.c
index 1284173..193cf9f 100644
--- a/target-i386/translate.c
+++ b/target-i386/translate.c
@@ -8000,7 +8000,7 @@ static inline void gen_intermediate_code_internal(X86CPU
*cpu,
if (bp->pc == pc_ptr &&
!((bp->flags & BP_CPU) && (tb->flags & HF_RF_MASK))) {
gen_debug(dc, pc_ptr - dc->cs_base);
- break;
+ goto done_generating;
This makes sense to me.
But I don't see why you don't just "break" like the other instruction in
this loop?
}
}
}
@@ -8049,6 +8049,7 @@ static inline void gen_intermediate_code_internal(X86CPU
*cpu,
break;
}
}
+done_generating:
if (tb->cflags & CF_LAST_IO)
gen_io_end();
Is there any reason why you don't jump over this two lines in case of a
breakpoint?
gen_tb_end(tb, num_insns);
I'll give it a try later and I'll let you know.
Thanks,
Fred
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] i386: fix breakpoints handling in icount mode, Paolo Bonzini, 2014/10/31