On 09/29/2016 07:27 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
...
>> This work was not done at this time since the changes could not be tested
>> with current CPU models. Comments have been added to flag the locations
>> where this will need to be fixed once a model is available.
>
> This is *not* why we haven't done this work. We haven't done it
> because the maximum virtual address size permitted by the
> architecture is less than 56 bits, and so this is a "can't happen"
> situation.
But, in an earlier discussion which we had about the desire to use QEMU to test
potential new ARM-based architectures with large address spaces I suggested
that these changes be made now. You said that the changes shouldn't be made
because:
where there is no supported guest CPU that could use
that code, the code shouldn't be there because it's untested
and untestable
Isn't that the same thing I said above?
>> 3 comments added in same file to identify cases in a switch.
>
> This should be a separate patch, because it is unrelated to the
> tagged address stuff.
As part of that same conversation you suggested adding these comments rather
than making the changes:
If we can assert, or failing that have a comment in the place
that would be modified anyway for 56 bit addresses then that
ought to catch the future case I think.
