From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=41742 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PCwAp-0006js-0e
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 11:19:58 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <weil@mail.berlios.de>) id 1PCwAF-0003mp-0C
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 11:19:16 -0400
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.8]:56745)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <weil@mail.berlios.de>) id 1PCwAE-0003mZ-IZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 11:19:14 -0400
Message-ID: <4CCEDA62.4060006@mail.berlios.de>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:18:58 +0100
From: Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1287781413-26723-1-git-send-email-weil@mail.berlios.de>	<1287781413-26723-4-git-send-email-weil@mail.berlios.de>	<AANLkTi=XRcetmhZoo14ioJqbKDi=EAFs9C4QChpHHoxo@mail.gmail.com>	<4CCE66CC.3080205@mail.berlios.de>	<AANLkTikAnpCsJKCaO=SdJHGb1NTArsrRxPH-RiVr1Tiv@mail.gmail.com>	<4CCE92FE.2080408@redhat.com>
	<AANLkTino2N6qxYxwXu1cLn=oVanETcqOjthfX7qr4_Dh@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CCE9E94.2030906@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CCE9E94.2030906@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 4/4] target-xxx: Use fprintf_function
	(format checking)
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.nongnu.org/archive/html/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: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>, TeLeMan <geleman@gmail.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

Am 01.11.2010 12:03, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> On 11/01/2010 11:27 AM, TeLeMan wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 18:14, Paolo Bonzini<pbonzini@redhat.com>  wrote:
>>> On 11/01/2010 10:50 AM, TeLeMan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think this patch is not right. Outputting 64bits data is not
>>>>>> necessary on 32bits mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you speak of 32 bit hosts or 32 bit targets?
>>>>
>>>> 32bit mode of x64
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as a 32 bit host on x64, only 64-bit hosts that
>>> haven't turned on long mode.  So printing 64 bits is correct for those.
>>
>> If so, why the above crX is printed by 32 bits?
>
> There are two issues.  One is what type specifier to use (and it is a 
> correctness issue), the other is what width to use (and it is an 
> aesthetics issue).  The patch fixes the correctness issue and makes 
> the aesthetic part worse.
>
> I agree that a better fix would be to cast to uint32_t as it is done 
> for crX, but this patch is anyway better than nothing because right 
> now DR7 is printed incorrectly _exactly on 64-bit guests running on 
> 32-bit mode_.
>
> An even better fix than uint32_t would be to introduce TARGET_FMT_8lx 
> (which maps to "%08"PRI_x64) so that, if for some reason the high 
> 32-bit are not zero, they will be shown.
>
> Paolo

Yes. We already had a similar discussion about TARGET_FMT_PLX, see
http://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg42977.html.

There I suggested to define PRIxTPA (format specifier for a target
physical address). We could also add a PRIxTUL (for target_ulong),
so it would be possible to output "%04" PRIxTUL or "%08" PRIxTUL.
Thus we could avoid the need for TARGET_FMT_8lx, TARGET_FMT_4lx
and maybe even TARGET_FMT_2lx.

Kind regards,
Stefan