From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AENkR-0008RO-KV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:54:35 -0500 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AENjv-0008Nf-RW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:54:34 -0500 Received: from [199.232.41.8] (helo=mx20.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.24) id 1AENjv-0008Nc-KP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:54:03 -0500 Received: from [212.16.62.51] (helo=mail.13thfloor.at) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AENhn-00046D-Ds for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:51:51 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:51:43 +0100 From: Herbert Poetzl Message-ID: <20031028065143.GA18174@DUK2.13thfloor.at> References: <20031026211800.GA6015@DUK2.13thfloor.at> <3F9C4515.4090308@free.fr> <20031026224358.GA6124@DUK2.13thfloor.at> <3F9DAC5D.5010300@free.fr> <20031027233957.GA15754@DUK2.13thfloor.at> <3F9DB26A.5050609@free.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F9DB26A.5050609@free.fr> Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: QEMU regressions ... Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Fabrice Bellard Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 01:03:54AM +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote: > Herbert Poetzl wrote: > >On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 12:38:05AM +0100, Fabrice Bellard wrote: > > > >>It seems that the page table is remapped at an invalid address: > >> > >>IN: > >>0x00100026: movl $0x30101000,%eax > >>0x0010002b: movl %eax,%cr3 > >> > >>I think more patches are needed to remap this kernel to a right address. > >>BUT... > >> > >>If you take my latest patches, you can use with QEMU any _unpatched_ > >>linux kernel now :-) > > > > > >hmm, what patches? I used the cvs version ... > I just commited new patches - I am preparing a new release. okay, so a 4.4 release is comming up, right? > >but this will use the 'slower' soft-mmu right? > Yes. was there some testing how much slower the soft-mmu is? or how much overhead it adds? > >what about gdb support, any improvement on that? > gdb should work better (single step is implemented but > I did not use it a lot). okay, will test it ... thanks for doing QEMU, Herbert > Fabrice.