From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IgR3s-0002tB-6K
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:24:44 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IgR3r-0002sJ-9I
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:24:43 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IgR3r-0002s4-1r
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:24:43 -0400
Received: from relay01.mx.bawue.net ([193.7.176.67])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <ths@networkno.de>) id 1IgR3q-00078V-K5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:24:42 -0400
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:24:08 +0100
From: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: fix run of 32 bits Linux executables on 64
	bits targets
Message-ID: <20071012202408.GM3379@networkno.de>
References: <1192002128.9976.186.camel@rapid> <470C8AD9.6000002@bellard.org>
	<20071010174906.GC3379@networkno.de> <470D1C9A.2000505@bellard.org>
	<f43fc5580710111226h51613fd8mc551ada410ac3cef@mail.gmail.com>
	<1192140040.9976.235.camel@rapid>
	<f43fc5580710120921m38256ad9o52597c13e84cc195@mail.gmail.com>
	<20071012184229.GL3379@networkno.de>
	<f43fc5580710121237g8aba64we387d002e880aaa9@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f43fc5580710121237g8aba64we387d002e880aaa9@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Cc: "J. Mayer" <l_indien@magic.fr>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Blue Swirl wrote:
> On 10/12/07, Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de> wrote:
> > Blue Swirl wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Index: qemu/linux-user/mipsn32/syscall.h
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- qemu.orig/linux-user/mipsn32/syscall.h    2007-10-11 19:17:14.000000000 +0000
> > > +++ qemu/linux-user/mipsn32/syscall.h 2007-10-11 19:17:46.000000000 +0000
> > > @@ -4,15 +4,15 @@
> > >
> > >  struct target_pt_regs {
> > >       /* Saved main processor registers. */
> > > -     target_ulong regs[32];
> > > +     abi_ulong regs[32];
> > >
> > >       /* Saved special registers. */
> > > -     target_ulong cp0_status;
> > > -     target_ulong lo;
> > > -     target_ulong hi;
> > > -     target_ulong cp0_badvaddr;
> > > -     target_ulong cp0_cause;
> > > -     target_ulong cp0_epc;
> > > +     abi_ulong cp0_status;
> > > +     abi_ulong lo;
> > > +     abi_ulong hi;
> > > +     abi_ulong cp0_badvaddr;
> > > +     abi_ulong cp0_cause;
> > > +     abi_ulong cp0_epc;
> > >  };
> >
> > This is broken. n32 has 64bit wide registers (and uses them for long long).
> 
> If target_ulong is 64 bits, then abi_ulong is 64 bits too and
> therefore correct. Unless you want to enable the ABI32 feature? It is
> only enabled for the new Sparc32plus and PPC targets for now.
> 
> But I put the original target_ulongs back.

I probably should have written "looks broken" than "is broken".
In any case, having abi_ulong not matching the ABI's "unsigned long"
is even more confusing than target_ulong not matching the ABI's
"unsigned long".

Now that I think of it again I believe the ABI32 feature isn't usable
for mips. The ABI-mandated structures are too different.


Thiemo