On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 12:43 PM Richard Henderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 4/14/21 11:03 AM, Max Filippov wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:51 AM Ilya Leoshkevich <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 16:48 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >>> Did you double-check the xtensa issue? > >> > >> Oh, I'm sorry, I completely forgot about that one. I just ran the > >> test locally, and apparently it fails because of this new assert, so > >> I'll have to write the 4th patch now. Thanks! > > > > Just curious, what xtensa issue? > > Returning from xtensa_tr_translate_insn with tb->size == 0. > > Basically, dc->base.pc_next needs to be incremented even for illegal > instructions, preferably by the number of bytes consumed while determining > that > the insn is illegal.
I see a few places where target/xtensa may do that. E.g. it does that on entry to an exception handler to allow for debugging its first instruction. No guest code is consumed to make this decision, would size 1 work in that case? I'll take a look. -- Thanks. -- Max
