From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HypNr-0008Vi-MC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:29:07 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HypNp-0008Uw-W1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:29:07 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HypNp-0008Up-No
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:29:05 -0400
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1HypNo-00086K-NZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:29:05 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] CPUTLBEntry Question
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:22:12 +0100
References: <812074ac0706131325t578dfd5eiaa5836b160a24679@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <812074ac0706131325t578dfd5eiaa5836b160a24679@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200706141422.13852.paul@codesourcery.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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Ryan Riley <rileyrd@gmail.com>

> then QEMU crashes on startup.  (It also crashes if I put that blah
> entry on the beginning instead of the end.)  I'm sure there's code
> somewhere that must be making assumptions about the size of TLB entry,
> but I'm at a loss for finding it.  (I have noticed that the assembly
> code in softmmu_header.h indexes to the addend based on addr_read or
> addr_write, but adding a new member to the end of the structure
> shouldn't impact that, right?)

Wrong. The assembly implementation assumes CPUTLBEntry is 16 bytes (or to be 
exact 1 << CPU_TLB_ENTRY_BITS).

The C implementation in softmmu_header.h will work with any layout.

Paul