On 10/02/2017 10:51 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 10/02/2017 02:45 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> On 10/02/2017 03:34 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: >>> On 10/02/2017 09:36 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>>> Maybe some defines like: >>>> >>>> #define LARGEST_TARGET_INSTR_SIZE 32 >>>> >>>> #define MINIMUM_TARGET_PAGE_SIZE 1024 >>> >>> Eh. If I weren't simply pulling numbers out of my hat, perhaps. >>> Does it really make things clearer beyond sizeof or a great big comment? >> >> big comment is great! > > Like the one that's already there?
Yes, sorry for being that unclear, I wanted to say "_this_ big comment _is_ great!". I suppose I think about using #defines because my English isn't that conveying than yours :) > > + /* We want to read memory for one insn, but generically we do not > + know how much memory that is. We have a small buffer which is > + known to be sufficient for all supported targets. Try to not > + read beyond the page, Just In Case. For even more simplicity, > + ignore the actual target page size and use a 1k boundary. If > + that turns out to be insufficient, we'll come back around the > + loop and read more. */ > > > r~ >
