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. Paul
