On 20 June 2012 23:59, Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: > On 06/20/2012 05:26 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 20 June 2012 22:14, Anthony Liguori<anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: >> ...for that matter weren't we tossing around the idea of just >> making target_phys_addr_t 64 bits for everything? (I actually >> want to do this for target-arm anyway; last time I did some >> quick smoke-tests of performance it didn't seem to hurt really >> even on a 32 bit host, and it avoids having to put the A15 in >> a different qemu-system-* binary to the other cores.)
> Didn't you whine and moan about the impact to printf()s last time I did > this? ;-) IIRC somebody in the review thread came up with a nice solution to that, though I forget what it was exactly. -- PMM
