Paul Brook wrote: > On Sunday 10 February 2008, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> Paul Brook wrote: >> >>>>> as far as i remember it was used to address something with >>>>> cpu_physical_memory_rw() probably related to &TARGET_PAGE_SIZE >>>>> or ~TARGET_PAGE_SIZE, >>>>> >>>>> the fact is that i dont know if it ever fixed anything >>>>> >>>> It fixes TARGET_PAGE_MASK, defined one line downscreen. >>>> >>> That doesn't really answer the question. What was wrong with the original >>> definition? >>> >> There are many instances of ((physical address) & TARGET_PAGE_MASK) >> scattered throughout the code. With 64-bit physical addresses, this >> causes truncation. >> > > No it doesn't. TARGET_PAGE_MASK will be sign extended to the width of > physical_address. This is why I asked for a concrete example of something > that broke. >
I understand now. No, I don't recall a specific instance, and it may have been an unnecessary step along the way to get large memory support working. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
