From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HD7Lf-0007us-Tk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:57:39 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HD7Le-0007ri-21
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:57:39 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HD7Ld-0007rd-Sp
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:57:37 -0500
Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.241])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1HD7Ld-0001SR-GD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:57:37 -0500
Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d40so1338324and
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 14:57:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <fb249edb0702021457h48d69f72n1ab5c22567afea16@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 23:57:36 +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: <200702022240.22482.paul@codesourcery.com>
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>
	<20070202214525.GA10125@saturn.kn-bremen.de>
	<fb249edb0702021427i63e03deka766d9ae84539bb1@mail.gmail.com>
	<200702022240.22482.paul@codesourcery.com>
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: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 02/02/07, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Are you sure you're not confusing it with target_phys_address_t?

Oops, right, TARGET_PHYS_ADDR_BITS and TARGET_LONG_BITS are different.
Sorry for the confusion.

Regards,
Andrew