From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HD6sW-0001HV-Ek
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:27:32 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HD6sU-0001Ec-VS
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:27:32 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HD6sU-0001EF-PM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:27:30 -0500
Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.248])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1HD6sU-0006Pz-GU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:27:30 -0500
Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d40so1324500and
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 14:27:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <fb249edb0702021427i63e03deka766d9ae84539bb1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 23:27:29 +0100
From: "andrzej zaborowski" <balrog@zabor.org>
Sender: balrogg@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: strange crash on FreeBSD-current/amd64 (pointer
	truncation?)
In-Reply-To: <20070202214525.GA10125@saturn.kn-bremen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20070124200019.GA36641@saturn.kn-bremen.de>
	<20070201200030.GA68583@saturn.kn-bremen.de>
	<20070202040200.GA32244@networkno.de>
	<20070202214525.GA10125@saturn.kn-bremen.de>
Reply-To: balrogg@gmail.com, 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 02/02/07, Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 04:02:00AM +0000, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Juergen Lock wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 09:00:19PM +0100, Juergen Lock wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > >  I got a report of qemu segfaulting here on FreeBSD-current/amd64:
> > > >
> > > > > #0  main_loop () at /usr/ports-cvs/emulators/qemu/work/qemu-snapshot-2007-01-11_05/vl.c:6125
> > > > > 6125                    env = env->next_cpu;
> > > > > [New Thread 0x801e10190 (LWP 100214)]
> > > > > (gdb) print env
> > > > > $1 = (CPUX86State *) 0xac10000
> > > > > (gdb) print first_cpu
> > > > > $2 = (CPUX86State *) 0x80ac10000
> > >
> > > Ok Jung-uk Kim found the following fix: (Thanx!)
> > >
> > > --- qemu/cpu-exec.c.orig    Wed Jan 31 16:58:03 2007
> > > +++ qemu/cpu-exec.c Wed Jan 31 17:08:11 2007
> > > @@ -226,9 +226,9 @@
> > >
> > >  int cpu_exec(CPUState *env1)
> > >  {
> > > -    int saved_T0, saved_T1;
> > > +    long saved_T0, saved_T1;
> > >  #if defined(reg_T2)
> > > -    int saved_T2;
> > > +    long saved_T2;
> >
> > I used target_ulong instead.
>
> Isn't that 32 bit for 32 bit targets?  Then it wouldn't fix the bug,

Well, it just happens that target_ulong is 64 bit even for 32 bit
target on a 64 bit host (as a workaround for something I think, was
wondering about it too. I asked on IRC once but no one knew the actual
reason). This however doesn't change the fact that target_ulong
shouldn't be used here.

Regards,
Andrew