From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50663) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WteDh-0007Bo-FX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2014 10:37:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WteDb-0004zi-Du for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2014 10:37:13 -0400 Message-ID: <5394750D.6000703@weilnetz.de> Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2014 16:37:01 +0200 From: Stefan Weil MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1402167282-9264-1-git-send-email-sw@weilnetz.de> <53945BB4.7030900@ilande.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <53945BB4.7030900@ilande.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] apb: Fix compiler warnings (large constants) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Mark Cave-Ayland , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org Am 08.06.2014 14:48, schrieb Mark Cave-Ayland: > On 07/06/14 19:54, Stefan Weil wrote: > >> Both constants need more than 32 bit. >> >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil >> --- >> hw/pci-host/apb.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/pci-host/apb.c b/hw/pci-host/apb.c >> index 1497008..6fa2723 100644 >> --- a/hw/pci-host/apb.c >> +++ b/hw/pci-host/apb.c >> @@ -99,8 +99,8 @@ do { printf("IOMMU: " fmt , ## __VA_ARGS__); } while >> (0) >> #define IOMMU_TTE_DATA_SIZE (1ULL << 61) >> #define IOMMU_TTE_DATA_W (1ULL << 1) >> >> -#define IOMMU_TTE_PHYS_MASK_8K 0x1ffffffe000 >> -#define IOMMU_TTE_PHYS_MASK_64K 0x1ffffff8000 >> +#define IOMMU_TTE_PHYS_MASK_8K 0x1ffffffe000ULL >> +#define IOMMU_TTE_PHYS_MASK_64K 0x1ffffff8000ULL >> >> #define IOMMU_TSB_8K_OFFSET_MASK_8M 0x00000000007fe000ULL >> #define IOMMU_TSB_8K_OFFSET_MASK_16M 0x0000000000ffe000ULL > > Gah yes, physical addresses in SPARC do lie outside the 32-bit range (I > guess this showed up building with a 32-bit compiler?). Is it urgent > enough to warrant me sending this as a separate pull request, or can it > simply be queued via trivial? It's not urgent, was detected by smatch (static code analyser), and is already queued via trivial (thanks, Michael). Cheers Stefan