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. Regards, Peter > -- PMM >
