From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LPVpp-0000ya-PG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:41:05 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LPVpo-0000yO-9y
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:41:04 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49058 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LPVpo-0000yL-5P
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:41:04 -0500
Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:4770)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>)
	id 1LPVpn-0001z8-Tj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:41:03 -0500
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1LPVpm-0002jX-P3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:41:03 -0500
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] User mode issue for loading 32-bit ELF on 64-bit
	guest processor
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 05:40:58 +0000
References: <761ea48b0901201223q628928e7qe586c42e147a7b6c@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <761ea48b0901201223q628928e7qe586c42e147a7b6c@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200901210540.58796.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: Laurent Desnogues <laurent.desnogues@gmail.com>

> Blue Swirl proposed to use accessors for these structures
> while I proposed to use a new abi_ulong-like type that would
> be the same no matter whether TARGET_ABI32 is defined or
> not.  As I am not sure there aren't some other structures that
> would need such a type, I think my proposal is less intrusive.
> The drawback is that it would introduce a new type and we
> already have many such *_ulong types :-)

I'm confused. Isn't this either target_ulong or abi_ulong?
I don't see what other possibilities there are.

Paul