From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HF9BI-00047z-RW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 08:19:20 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HF9BG-00047n-M7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 08:19:19 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HF9BG-00047k-GI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 08:19:18 -0500 Received: from static-71-162-243-5.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([71.162.243.5] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1HF92p-0000g4-Ho for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 08:10:35 -0500 From: Rob Landley Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: strange crash on FreeBSD-current/amd64 (pointertruncation?) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:09:54 -0500 References: <61EB814CF63D9642BA6DD5B76DB0894306DAC0@mx-met-exch0.scisys.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200702080809.54787.rob@landley.net> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Friday 02 February 2007 2:03 pm, Gwenole Beauchesne wrote: > On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Gwenole Beauchesne wrote: > > > The proper fix would be to not globally allocate registers for the whole > > program but only for the micro-ops. Then, make the necessary > > save/restore around the gen_func call. > > Hmm, I realized in the train that this wouldn't work for QEMU. > > > + /* Preserve callee-saved registers */ > > +#ifdef AREG0 > > + register unsigned long reg_AREG0 asm(AREG0); > > + volatile unsigned long saved_AREG0; > > +#endif > > BTW, better read (unsigned long) as (void *) or uintptr_t in case you ever > want to port QEMU to Win64 or other strange LLP64 platform. Is there an LLP64 platform other than Windows-64? I know there can't be a standards compliant Unix platform (including MacOS X) that isn't LP64: The LP64 standard is here: http://www.unix.org/whitepapers/64bit.html>the LP64 standard The rationale for that standard is here: http://www.unix.org/version2/whatsnew/lp64_wp.html And the insane legacy reasons Windows decided on a broken approach are explained here: http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2005/01/31/363790.aspx Considering that Windows 64 currently has less of a userbase than Itanium, I'd personally wait and see Microsoft's first attempt at a 64 bit solution turns out any better than Intel's before putting much effort into supporting it. So far it _sounds_ like the software equivalent of Itanic... Rob -- "Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery