| Re: [hatari-devel] Re: Hatari debugging help with WinUAE CPU core |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/hatari-devel Archives
]
Hi,
On perjantai 24 tammikuu 2014, Nicolas Pomarède wrote:
> Le 23/01/2014 23:16, Eero Tamminen a écrit :
> > Attached patch implements that and adds several new exception points
> > for old UAE CPU core. It's help looks following:
> > -------------------------------------------
> > $ src/hatari --exceptions help
>
> regarding "--exceptions" I think it has a too broad meaning,
That's what "hatari --help" option is there for:
-------------------
....
Debug options:
--debug or -D Toggle whether CPU exceptions invoke debugger
--exceptions <flags> Which exceptions invoke debugger, see '--
exceptions help'
-------------------
> maybe you could use "--exception_debug" instead ?
That's way too long, it would make Hatari "--help" output too
wide for 80 cols console. If you want it changed, please suggest
something more specific that's not longer than "--exceptions"
(current option & help already goes to 80 cols).
Already existing --debug options has also very broad meaning,
how I should rename that?
> Also, regarding the change in uae-cpu/newcpu.c, I think it adds too much
> debug code and can hide the real work in the exception emulation, making
> the code less clear.
>
> I think you should leave unchanged :
>
> - case 2: M68000_AddCycles(50); break; /* Bus error */
> - case 3: M68000_AddCycles(50); break; /* Address error */
> - case 4: M68000_AddCycles(34); break; /* Illegal instruction */
> - case 5: M68000_AddCycles(38); break; /* Div by zero */
> - case 6: M68000_AddCycles(40); break; /* CHK */
> - case 7: M68000_AddCycles(34); break; /* TRAPV */
> - case 8: M68000_AddCycles(34); break; /* Privilege violation */
> - case 9: M68000_AddCycles(34); break; /* Trace */
> - case 10: M68000_AddCycles(34); break; /* Line-A - probably wrong
> */ - case 11: M68000_AddCycles(34); break; /* Line-F - probably
> wrong */
>
>
> And add just after a call like :
>
> if ( ( nr>=2 ) && ( nr<=11) && ( ExceptionDebugMask ) )
> DebugUI_Check_Interrupt_Mask ( nr );
I'm assuming you're more worried about modifying existing code
lines than adding single block of code there. If that's true,
does the attached patch look better?
> Also, maybe make those modifications to cpu/newcpuc too ? It will be
> easier to merge both cpu later if they are as close as possible.
When looking WinUAE CPU code for:
1. Exception_ce000()
2. Exception_mmu()
3. Exception_normal()
Why 1) calls VDI emulation after MakeSR(),
3) before it, and 2) not at all?
And why there's debugger activation in Exception(),
instead of in exception_debug() that's called from
above listed functions (i.e. like it's done in old
UAE CPU core)?
(Exception handling there looks completely different, i.e. I don't
think adding exception debugging there to affect merging in either
direction.)
- Eero
diff -r 32fe6f0bf5c3 src/uae-cpu/newcpu.c
--- a/src/uae-cpu/newcpu.c Mon Jan 20 01:56:24 2014 +0200
+++ b/src/uae-cpu/newcpu.c Fri Jan 24 23:54:46 2014 +0200
@@ -987,7 +987,7 @@
put_long (m68k_areg(regs, 7)+2, last_fault_for_exception_3);
put_word (m68k_areg(regs, 7)+6, last_op_for_exception_3);
put_long (m68k_areg(regs, 7)+10, last_addr_for_exception_3);
- if (bExceptionDebugging) {
+ if (ExceptionDebugMask & EXCEPT_ADDRESS) {
fprintf(stderr,"Address Error at address $%x, PC=$%x\n",last_fault_for_exception_3,currpc);
DebugUI(REASON_CPU_EXCEPTION);
}
@@ -1014,7 +1014,7 @@
fprintf(stderr, "Detected double bus error at address $%x, PC=$%lx => CPU halted!\n",
BusErrorAddress, (long)currpc);
unset_special(SPCFLAG_BUSERROR);
- if (bExceptionDebugging)
+ if (ExceptionDebugMask & EXCEPT_BUS)
DebugUI(REASON_CPU_EXCEPTION);
else
DlgAlert_Notice("Detected double bus error => CPU halted!\nEmulation needs to be reset.\n");
@@ -1022,7 +1022,7 @@
m68k_setstopped(true);
return;
}
- if (bExceptionDebugging && BusErrorAddress!=0xff8a00) {
+ if ((ExceptionDebugMask & EXCEPT_BUS) && BusErrorAddress!=0xff8a00) {
fprintf(stderr,"Bus Error at address $%x, PC=$%lx\n", BusErrorAddress, (long)currpc);
DebugUI(REASON_CPU_EXCEPTION);
}
@@ -1030,8 +1030,8 @@
}
/* Set PC and flags */
- if (bExceptionDebugging && get_long (regs.vbr + 4*nr) == 0) {
- write_log("Uninitialized exception handler #%i!\n", nr);
+ if ((ExceptionDebugMask & EXCEPT_NOHANDLER) && (regs.vbr + 4*nr) == 0) {
+ fprintf(stderr,"Uninitialized exception handler #%i!\n", nr);
DebugUI(REASON_CPU_EXCEPTION);
}
newpc = get_long (regs.vbr + 4*nr);
@@ -1039,8 +1039,11 @@
{
if ( nr==2 || nr==3 ) /* address error during bus/address error -> stop emulation */
{
- fprintf(stderr,"Address Error during exception 2/3, aborting new PC=$%x\n",newpc);
- DebugUI(REASON_CPU_EXCEPTION);
+ fprintf(stderr,"Address Error during exception 2/3, aborting new PC=$%x\n",newpc);
+ if (ExceptionDebugMask & (EXCEPT_BUS|EXCEPT_ADDRESS))
+ DebugUI(REASON_CPU_EXCEPTION);
+ else
+ DlgAlert_Notice("Address Error during exception 2/3 => CPU halted!\nEmulation needs to be reset.\n");
}
else
{
@@ -1049,6 +1052,22 @@
}
return;
}
+ /* handle debugger invocation for rest of exceptions */
+ if (ExceptionDebugMask && nr > 3 && nr < 9)
+ {
+ static struct { int flag; const char *name; } ex[] = {
+ { EXCEPT_ILLEGAL, "Illegal instruction" }, /* 4 */
+ { EXCEPT_ZERODIV, "Div by zero" }, /* 5 */
+ { EXCEPT_CHK, "CHK" }, /* 6 */
+ { EXCEPT_TRAPV, "TRAPV" }, /* 7 */
+ { EXCEPT_PRIVILEGE, "Privilege violation" } /* 8 */
+ };
+ if (ExceptionDebugMask & ex[nr-4].flag)
+ {
+ fprintf(stderr,"%s exception at 0x%lx!\n", ex[nr-4].name, (long)currpc);
+ DebugUI(REASON_CPU_EXCEPTION);
+ }
+ }
m68k_setpc (get_long (regs.vbr + 4*nr));
fill_prefetch_0 ();