On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 1:45 PM Alistair Francis wrote:
> I think it makes more sense to just define the variable in the
> gdbstubs.c file then. Can you move it to patch 5?
Yes, that is no problem. That makes patch 3 a lot smaller and patch 5
a lot bigger, but it is the same code as before, just
On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 11:22 AM Jim Wilson wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 2:23 PM Richard Henderson
> wrote:
> > On 12/29/18 9:09 AM, Jim Wilson wrote:
> > > +int csr_register_map[] = {
> >
> > static const?
>
> If I add static const here, then I get a build error if this patch is
> applied
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 2:23 PM Richard Henderson
wrote:
> On 12/29/18 9:09 AM, Jim Wilson wrote:
> > +int csr_register_map[] = {
>
> static const?
If I add static const here, then I get a build error if this patch is
applied to the tree but the following patch #5 that uses the variable
is not ap
On 12/29/18 9:09 AM, Jim Wilson wrote:
> +++ b/target/riscv/csr-map.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,248 @@
> +/*
> + * The GDB CSR xml files list them in documentation order, not numerical
> order,
> + * and are missing entries for unnamed CSRs. So we need to map the gdb
> numbers
> + * to the hardware numbers.
The gdb CSR xml file has registers in documentation order, not numerical
order, so we need a table to map the register numbers. This also adds
some missing CSR_* register macros.
Signed-off-by: Jim Wilson
---
target/riscv/cpu_bits.h | 35 ++-
target/riscv/csr-map.h | 248 +
