On 4 December 2012 21:39, Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> wrote: > On 2012-12-04 15:25, Peter Maydell wrote: >> So this is just a refactoring, but it prompts me to ask -- how does >> this work if the PC that caused us to take this TLB fill is legitimately >> zero? We seem to be overloading retaddr==0 as a "not a real cpu fault" >> indicator... > > Since this is a host code address, usually inside code_gen_buffer, > not a target code address, this isn't ever going to happen.
Oh, right. I was confused by the fact we're keeping it in a uintptr_t rather than a void*. -- PMM
