From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1I2vXd-0000ir-Q2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:52:09 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1I2vXb-0000ib-ON
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:52:08 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I2vXb-0000iO-LR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:52:07 -0400
Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <blauwirbel@gmail.com>) id 1I2vXb-0006II-8N
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:52:07 -0400
Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id a2so1290522ugf
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f43fc5580706251352p18b10d13ifac7b7b1fb9d52b6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:52:06 +0300
From: "Blue Swirl" <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH, RFC] More than 2G of memory on 64-bit hosts
In-Reply-To: <200706252226.50773.michal.schulz@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <f43fc5580706251316q7f261d5u837b05ee0596ef68@mail.gmail.com>
	<200706252226.50773.michal.schulz@gmx.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 6/25/07, Michal Schulz <michal.schulz@gmx.de> wrote:
> On Monday 25 June 2007, Blue Swirl wrote:
> > This patch removes the restriction of 2G ram size on 64-bit hosts.
> > Theoretically Sparc32 on a SS-10 like machine could handle more than
> > 62GB of memory.
> >
> > There seems to be problems in the boot BIOSes to manage even >2G
> > memory sizes, I've found some in OpenBIOS but there are still many
> > left.
> >
> > Any comments?
>
> One from me, if you like... Just don't use the "unsigned long" type. The
> intptr_t type would be better (it's 32-bit on 32-bit systems and 64-bit on
> 64-bit systems).

Nice, I didn't know about that. But how is this any different from
unsigned long?