On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 16:04, Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 8/6/19 3:00 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > > Renaming pc_next would be a cross-target change, so let's put that > > on the shelf for the moment. Maybe just put a TODO comment to the > > effect that we could consider renaming in future ? > > I wasn't suggesting renaming the cross-target variable. > > I was suggesting shuffling around the current names, and using "pc_next" for > what it sounds like -- the pc of the next insn.
Oh, I see, so incrementing base->pc_next after we load the insn? Yeah, that would work too. Though it seems a bit odd to me to have the target-specific code modifying a field in the base struct -- that seems like it ought to be purely for the generic TCG code to use. thanks -- PMM
