On 06/22/2013 02:26 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Thanks, applied to ppc-next. Teaching gdb a new protocol is way out of scope
> for these rare cases :).
>
Thanks guys,
--
Fabien Chouteau
On 21.06.2013, at 20:10, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2013-06-18 17:34, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 18.06.2013, at 16:53, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
>>
>>> On PPC 6xx, data and code have separated TLBs. Until now QEMU was only
>>> looking at data TLBs, which is not good when GDB wants to read code.
>>
On 2013-06-18 17:34, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 18.06.2013, at 16:53, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
>
>> On PPC 6xx, data and code have separated TLBs. Until now QEMU was only
>> looking at data TLBs, which is not good when GDB wants to read code.
>>
>> This patch adds a second call to get_physical_ad
On 18.06.2013, at 16:53, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
> On PPC 6xx, data and code have separated TLBs. Until now QEMU was only
> looking at data TLBs, which is not good when GDB wants to read code.
>
> This patch adds a second call to get_physical_address() with an
> ACCESS_CODE type of access when th
On PPC 6xx, data and code have separated TLBs. Until now QEMU was only
looking at data TLBs, which is not good when GDB wants to read code.
This patch adds a second call to get_physical_address() with an
ACCESS_CODE type of access when the first call with ACCESS_INT fails.
Signed-off-by: Fabien C
