Mads Ynddal <mads@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> It will do. You could just call it update_guest_debug as it is an
>> internal static function although I guess that makes grepping a bit of a
>> pain.
>
> I agree. It should preferably be something unique, to ease grep'ing.
>
>> Is something being accidentally linked with linux-user and softmmu?
>
> Good question. I'm not familiar enough with the code base to know.
>
> I experimented with enabling/disabling linux-user when configuring, and it does
> affect whether it compiles or not.
>
> The following seems to fix it, and I can see the same approach is taken other
> places in cpu.c. Would this be an acceptable solution?
>
> diff --git a/cpu.c b/cpu.c
> index 6effa5acc9..c9e8700691 100644
> --- a/cpu.c
> +++ b/cpu.c
> @@ -386,6 +386,7 @@ void cpu_breakpoint_remove_all(CPUState *cpu, int mask)
> void cpu_single_step(CPUState *cpu, int enabled)
> {
> if (cpu->singlestep_enabled != enabled) {
> +#if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY)
> const AccelOpsClass *ops = cpus_get_accel();
>
> cpu->singlestep_enabled = enabled;
> @@ -393,6 +394,7 @@ void cpu_single_step(CPUState *cpu, int enabled)
> if (ops->update_guest_debug) {
> ops->update_guest_debug(cpu, 0);
> }
> +#endif
>
> trace_breakpoint_singlestep(cpu->cpu_index, enabled);
> }
Sorry this dropped of my radar. Yes I think the ifdef will do. Are you
going to post a v2 with all the various updates?
--
Alex Bennée
Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro
