From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KjwhF-0003P4-UX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 28 Sep 2008 09:52:26 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KjwhE-0003Oj-Bi
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 28 Sep 2008 09:52:25 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54005 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KjwhE-0003Oc-8M
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 28 Sep 2008 09:52:24 -0400
Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.240]:29239)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <blauwirbel@gmail.com>) id 1KjwhD-0004Xv-RH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 28 Sep 2008 09:52:24 -0400
Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id f25so1484152rvb.22
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sun, 28 Sep 2008 06:52:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f43fc5580809280652o55a2dd3exdcb3fd9e2f06a8ba@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:52:22 +0300
From: "Blue Swirl" <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] constant truncation warning in hw/pc.c for 32bit
	targets
In-Reply-To: <20080928144429.5781982d@holly>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20080928144429.5781982d@holly>
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 9/28/08, Jindrich Makovicka <makovick@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>  for 32bit targets, the 0x100000000ULL start address of above-4G memory
>  is truncated to zero. IMO the code for above-4G allocation could be
>  #ifdef'ed only for 64 bit targets, as for 32bit it 1) miscompiles and
>  2) won't be used anyway:

There are i386 systems with more than 4G of memory, so your patch is incorrect.

Now, if the code miscompiles there could be a problem somewhere else.