On 8/6/19 8:21 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 16:04, Richard Henderson > <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> On 8/6/19 3:00 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> Renaming pc_next would be a cross-target change, so let's put that >>> on the shelf for the moment. Maybe just put a TODO comment to the >>> effect that we could consider renaming in future ? >> >> I wasn't suggesting renaming the cross-target variable. >> >> I was suggesting shuffling around the current names, and using "pc_next" for >> what it sounds like -- the pc of the next insn. > > Oh, I see, so incrementing base->pc_next after we load > the insn? Yeah, that would work too. Though it seems a bit > odd to me to have the target-specific code modifying > a field in the base struct -- that seems like it ought to > be purely for the generic TCG code to use.
Part of the contract with translator.c is that base.pc_next is updated. See arm_post_translate_insn. The difference would be to update early, immediately after reading the insn word, before decode, instead of delaying the update until the end after decode. r~
