On 16 October 2015 at 02:14, Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> wrote: > 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.
OK, that sounds good. (It does suggest that we should just be advancing PC by 1 for all targets, though.) -- PMM
