On 4/14/21 11:03 AM, Max Filippov wrote:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:51 AM Ilya Leoshkevich <i...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 16:48 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
Did you double-check the xtensa issue?
Oh, I'm sorry, I completely forgot about that one. I just ran the
test locally, and apparently it fails because of this new assert, so
I'll have to write the 4th patch now. Thanks!
Just curious, what xtensa issue?
Returning from xtensa_tr_translate_insn with tb->size == 0.
Basically, dc->base.pc_next needs to be incremented even for illegal
instructions, preferably by the number of bytes consumed while determining that
the insn is illegal.
r~
