On 07/01/2013 10:25 AM, Andreas Färber wrote: > This is the first case where I am proposing the use of uint64_t in place > of target_ulong. In this case a gdb command using such a hook is not > performance-sensitive. Do you see this as an acceptable path for adding > further CPUClass hooks such as MMU fault handling?
I think that would be appropriate. MMU faulting can't be much more performance sensitive than device emulation, which is already standardizing on 64-bit addresses. > Should we introduce some ulong-target-max typedef similar to hwaddr or > use plain uint64_t as done here? I would think hwaddr wouldn't be appropriate, since that's supposed to be talking about physical addresses, and that's not the case here. The name (and admittedly minimal documentation for) ram_addr_t sounds right, but it seems to be sized wrong, so I don't know what it's actually supposed to be. Unless someone has a better suggestion, I'd stay with uint64_t. r~
