From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HD6oD-0000Os-K1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:23:05 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HD6oB-0000Og-6p
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:23:04 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HD6oB-0000Od-1W
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:23:03 -0500
Received: from phoenix.bawue.net ([193.7.176.60] helo=mail.bawue.net)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1HD6oA-0005nt-N0
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:23:02 -0500
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 22:24:28 +0000
From: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: strange crash on FreeBSD-current/amd64 (pointer
	truncation?)
Message-ID: <20070202222428.GA9622@networkno.de>
References: <20070124200019.GA36641@saturn.kn-bremen.de>
	<20070201200030.GA68583@saturn.kn-bremen.de>
	<20070202040200.GA32244@networkno.de>
	<20070202214525.GA10125@saturn.kn-bremen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070202214525.GA10125@saturn.kn-bremen.de>
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: Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Juergen Lock wrote:
> > > Ok Jung-uk Kim found the following fix: (Thanx!)
> > > 
> > > --- qemu/cpu-exec.c.orig	Wed Jan 31 16:58:03 2007
> > > +++ qemu/cpu-exec.c	Wed Jan 31 17:08:11 2007
> > > @@ -226,9 +226,9 @@
> > >  
> > >  int cpu_exec(CPUState *env1)
> > >  {
> > > -    int saved_T0, saved_T1;
> > > +    long saved_T0, saved_T1;
> > >  #if defined(reg_T2)
> > > -    int saved_T2;
> > > +    long saved_T2;
> > 
> > I used target_ulong instead.
> 
> Isn't that 32 bit for 32 bit targets?  Then it wouldn't fix the bug,
> the problem happened for 32 bit guests (i386-softmmu) on 64 bit hosts
> (FreeBSD-current/amd64), there the upper half of rbx which held a
> pointer in the calling function was lost...

Apparently I miss something here. If T0 is a (32bit) target_ulong,
why does saving it to a (32bit) target_ulong and restoring it from
there cause any trouble?


Thiemo