From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I2vlf-00027E-9D for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:06:39 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I2vld-00023P-HD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:06:38 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I2vld-000230-5o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:06:37 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1I2vlc-0000P5-El for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:06:36 -0400 From: Michal Schulz Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH, RFC] More than 2G of memory on 64-bit hosts Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:08:04 +0200 References: <200706252226.50773.michal.schulz@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200706252308.04317.michal.schulz@gmx.de> 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 Monday 25 June 2007, Blue Swirl wrote: > Nice, I didn't know about that. But how is this any different from > unsigned long? It may be the same. But at least the code looks more consistent (IMHO) :) -- Michal Schulz