From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36753)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1UtjOL-00015I-Ew
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 15:04:04 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1UtjOI-0007DY-8F
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 15:04:01 -0400
Sender: Richard Henderson <rth7680@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51D1D298.30605@twiddle.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 12:03:52 -0700
From: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1372536117-28167-1-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de>
	<1372536117-28167-5-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de>
	<51D1B7D2.8040604@twiddle.net> <51D1BB86.8020003@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <51D1BB86.8020003@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC qom-cpu 04/41] cpu: Introduce
 CPUClass::set_pc() for gdb_set_cpu_pc()
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/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: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= <afaerber@suse.de>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>, Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>, qemu-ppc <qemu-ppc@nongnu.org>, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>, "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>, Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>

On 07/01/2013 10:25 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
> This is the first case where I am proposing the use of uint64_t in place
> of target_ulong. In this case a gdb command using such a hook is not
> performance-sensitive. Do you see this as an acceptable path for adding
> further CPUClass hooks such as MMU fault handling?

I think that would be appropriate.  MMU faulting can't be much more performance
sensitive than device emulation, which is already standardizing on 64-bit
addresses.

> Should we introduce some ulong-target-max typedef similar to hwaddr or
> use plain uint64_t as done here?

I would think hwaddr wouldn't be appropriate, since that's supposed to be
talking about physical addresses, and that's not the case here.  The name (and
admittedly minimal documentation for) ram_addr_t sounds right, but it seems to
be sized wrong, so I don't know what it's actually supposed to be.

Unless someone has a better suggestion, I'd stay with uint64_t.


r~