Fabrice Bellard wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I cannot accept the patches for several reasons:
> 
> 1) You mix cosmetic and functional patches.

Do you have specific hunks in mind? I'm a bit blind ATM, not seeing
where I changed coding style or naming for cosmetic reasons.

> 
> 2) The current watchpoint code is not implemented correctly so it is not
> safe to improve it using the same system (IMHO it should not have been
> commited in its current state). A correct implementation should not
> delay the DEBUG exception. It should be implemented like the "normal"
> MMU exceptions.

Yeah, I'm sitting over this point right now, asking myself why a
watchpoint exception was modeled as CPU_INTERRUPT_DEBUG

Do you have a pattern at hand how to signal this correctly? As I don't
want to raise an exception on the guest CPU, I'm a bit clueless how to
achieve this.

Thanks,
Jan