On 07/01/2013 12:41 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > Returning to the point, what we're after here is "a type which will hold > a guest virtual address but whose size doesn't depend on the target the > way target_ulong does", right? My inclination is to suggest that we have > a 'vaddr' typedef by analogy with 'hwaddr'; it seems like that might make > code dealing with guest addresses a little more self documenting. I don't > feel very strongly about it though so if people think it's pointless/will > cause problems that's fine. >
I agree that vaddr would probably be a good name. r~
