From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1GyxJK-0002st-Js
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Dec 2006 16:24:42 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1GyxJI-0002qr-Q5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Dec 2006 16:24:41 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GyxJI-0002qf-Ho
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Dec 2006 16:24:40 -0500
Received: from [64.233.166.182] (helo=py-out-1112.google.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1GyxJI-00031b-4p
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Dec 2006 16:24:40 -0500
Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id h31so2058045pyc
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 25 Dec 2006 13:24:39 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <e8ca35370612251324j50dc2aedy4122be27d0984067@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 22:24:39 +0100
From: "Pascal Terjan" <pterjan@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] time for 0.8.3/0.9?
In-Reply-To: <458E9DBF.7000002@t-online.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <41e41e7a0612240450o32d160d3na9b9e27a034436e5@mail.gmail.com>
	<458E9DBF.7000002@t-online.de>
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

On 12/24/06, Werner Dittmann <Werner.Dittmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> Well, I'm not a Qemu developer and have no right to vote or make
> suggestions here. Thus I can only express my humble opinion here (a
> somewhat selfisch opinion though:-) ): I would love to see that a new
> release would solve the problems with 64bit (x86-64) emulation. In
> particular if Qemu was compiled on a x86_64 system with a native 64bit
> compiler. To me it seems that there are some problems.

Could you be more precise ?
I have been using qemu on x86_64 built with a 64 bits compiler for
more than 1 year (maybe 2).