On Monday 18 January 2010, Spencer Oliver wrote:
> Skip over a bkpt instruction if found on resume/step.
This is a bugfix for RAM-based code, yes?
> +int armv7m_check_bkpt_inst(struct target *target)
This name leaves a lot to be desired. How about
using "maybe_skip" instead of "check"?
And this isn't returning a fault code if it can't
read the instruction... it should do that.
> + /* if we halted last time due to a bkpt instruction
> + * then we have to manually step over it, otherwise
> + * the core will break again */
> +
> + if (!breakpoint_find(target, buf_get_u32(r->value, 0, 32)) &&
> !debug_execution)
Line is way too long...
> + {
> + armv7m_check_bkpt_inst(target);
> + }
> +
> resume_pc = buf_get_u32(r->value, 0, 32);
>
> armv7m_restore_context(target);
> @@ -735,6 +746,7 @@ static int cortex_m3_step(struct target *target, int
> current,
> LOG_DEBUG("target stepped dcb_dhcsr = 0x%" PRIx32
> " nvic_icsr = 0x%" PRIx32,
> cortex_m3->dcb_dhcsr, cortex_m3->nvic_icsr);
> +
Needless addition of whitespace.
> return ERROR_OK;
> }
>
_______________________________________________
Openocd-development mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
