On 4/16/22 23:02, Tomoaki Kawada wrote:
`cpu_pc` at this point does not necessary point to the current
instruction (i.e., the wait instruction being translated), so it's
incorrect to calculate the new value of `cpu_pc` based on this. It must
be updated with `ctx->base.pc_next`, which contains
On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 15:02:25 +0900,
Tomoaki Kawada wrote:
>
> `cpu_pc` at this point does not necessary point to the current
> instruction (i.e., the wait instruction being translated), so it's
> incorrect to calculate the new value of `cpu_pc` based on this. It must
> be updated with
On 4/16/22 23:02, Tomoaki Kawada wrote:
`cpu_pc` at this point does not necessary point to the current
instruction (i.e., the wait instruction being translated), so it's
incorrect to calculate the new value of `cpu_pc` based on this. It must
be updated with `ctx->base.pc_next`, which contains
`cpu_pc` at this point does not necessary point to the current
instruction (i.e., the wait instruction being translated), so it's
incorrect to calculate the new value of `cpu_pc` based on this. It must
be updated with `ctx->base.pc_next`, which contains the correct address
of the next instruction.
