On 8/10/23 09:43, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 8/10/23 09:35, Alex Bennée wrote:
So 7 and 8? I would argue for 6 as well given that's a foot gun just
waiting to happen.
Yes, the timing issues with 6 are nasty.
I'm going to queue 6-8 to tcg-next, along with the %x change Phil suggested for log
On 8/10/23 09:35, Alex Bennée wrote:
So 7 and 8? I would argue for 6 as well given that's a foot gun just
waiting to happen.
Yes, the timing issues with 6 are nasty.
r~
Peter Maydell writes:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 at 16:36, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>
>> This is mostly gdbstub focused but I cleaned up some bits while I was
>> in the testing makefiles. This is mostly to make the "check-tcg"
>> output as clean as possible without ugly line wraps. I tried to
>> elimina
On 8/10/23 08:58, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 at 16:36, Alex Bennée wrote:
This is mostly gdbstub focused but I cleaned up some bits while I was
in the testing makefiles. This is mostly to make the "check-tcg"
output as clean as possible without ugly line wraps. I tried to
elimina
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 at 16:36, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> This is mostly gdbstub focused but I cleaned up some bits while I was
> in the testing makefiles. This is mostly to make the "check-tcg"
> output as clean as possible without ugly line wraps. I tried to
> eliminate the gdbstub info() output but
This is mostly gdbstub focused but I cleaned up some bits while I was
in the testing makefiles. This is mostly to make the "check-tcg"
output as clean as possible without ugly line wraps. I tried to
eliminate the gdbstub info() output but sadly this is harder than
expected.
I've tweaked the gdbstu
