On 10/16/2015 03:36 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 14 October 2015 at 22:02, Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> wrote:
On 10/15/2015 06:34 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
This is still the same cryptic comment we have in the
targets which do do this. Can we have something
that is a bit more explanatory about what is going on and
why we need to do this, please?
Suggestions?
...well, I don't entirely understand the problem it's
fixing, which is why I'm asking for a better comment :-)
Heh. Fair enough. How about
/* The address covered by the breakpoint must be included in
[tb->pc, tb->pc + tb->size) in order to for it to be
properly cleared -- thus we increment the PC here so that
the logic setting tb->size below does the right thing. */
There are two edge cases that cause the problem with clearing that could be
described, but I think that the comment becomes too bulky, as well as confuses
the situation for someone cutting-and-pasting the logic to a new port.
r~
