On 12/28/2016 08:28 AM, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
+typedef enum DisasJumpType {
+ DJ_NEXT,
+ DJ_TOO_MANY,
+ DJ_TARGET,
+} DisasJumpType;
I wonder if enums like DJ_TARGET_{0..N} wouldn't be better, rather than doing
addition in the target-specific names.
+typedef struct DisasContextBase {
+ TranslationBlock *tb;
+ bool singlestep_enabled;
+ target_ulong pc_first;
+ target_ulong pc_next;
+ DisasJumpType jmp_type;
+ unsigned int num_insns;
+} DisasContextBase;
Sort the bool to the end to minimize padding.
+/* Get first breakpoint matching a PC */
+static inline CPUBreakpoint *cpu_breakpoint_get(CPUState *cpu, vaddr pc,
+ CPUBreakpoint *bp)
+{
+ if (likely(bp == NULL)) {
+ if (unlikely(!QTAILQ_EMPTY(&cpu->breakpoints))) {
+ QTAILQ_FOREACH(bp, &cpu->breakpoints, entry) {
+ if (bp->pc == pc) {
+ return bp;
+ }
+ }
+ }
+ } else {
+ QTAILQ_FOREACH_CONTINUE(bp, entry) {
+ if (bp->pc == pc) {
+ return bp;
+ }
+ }
+ }
+ return NULL;
+}
Any reason not to put the QTAILQ_FOREACH directly into gen_intermediate_code,
rather than indirect it like this? I don't see this abstraction as an improvement.
r~
