From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Hdlsp-0003n7-14
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 07:30:03 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Hdlsn-0003mv-FI
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 07:30:01 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hdlsn-0003ms-9l
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 07:30:01 -0400
Received: from chrom.inf.tu-dresden.de ([141.76.48.24])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <kauer@chrom.inf.tu-dresden.de>)
	id 1Hdlo4-0004Yk-8m
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 07:25:08 -0400
Received: from kauer by chrom.inf.tu-dresden.de with local (Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <kauer@chrom.inf.tu-dresden.de>) id 1Hdlp9-0000kr-AZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:26:15 +0200
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:26:15 +0200
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Qemu / KQemu on 64-bit (x86_64) host systems
Message-ID: <20070417112615.GD2722@chrom.inf.tu-dresden.de>
References: <46231BEB.5070402@t-online.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <46231BEB.5070402@t-online.de>
From: Bernhard Kauer <kauer@chrom.inf.tu-dresden.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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 08:47:07AM +0200, Werner Dittmann wrote:
> My general thought about the problem: running 32bit code
> on a 64bit host with similar architecture as this is the case
> of x86 / x86_64 could easily result in problems with signedness,
> sign bit extension, different pointer/word/interger sizes...


qemu-system-x86_64 has indeed some signedness problem. I posted a
patch <20070410133045.GC6046@chrom.inf.tu-dresden.de> a couple of
days ago for the problem that the pagefault address gets incorrectly
sign extended when running 32-bit code. Nevertheless its just a
workaround, the place where this wrong sign extension happend needs
still to be found.


	Bernhard Kauer