On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 16:40, Richard Henderson
<richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> From: Anton Johansson <a...@rev.ng>
>
> Signed-off-by: Anton Johansson <a...@rev.ng>
> Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org>
> Message-Id: <20230621135633.1649-3-a...@rev.ng>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org>
> ---

> @@ -634,10 +634,10 @@ void cpu_io_recompile(CPUState *cpu, uintptr_t retaddr)
>      cpu->cflags_next_tb = curr_cflags(cpu) | CF_MEMI_ONLY | CF_LAST_IO | n;
>
>      if (qemu_loglevel_mask(CPU_LOG_EXEC)) {
> -        target_ulong pc = log_pc(cpu, tb);
> +        vaddr pc = log_pc(cpu, tb);
>          if (qemu_log_in_addr_range(pc)) {
> -            qemu_log("cpu_io_recompile: rewound execution of TB to "
> -                     TARGET_FMT_lx "\n", pc);
> +            qemu_log("cpu_io_recompile: rewound execution of TB to %"
> +                     VADDR_PRIx "\n", pc);

TARGET_FMT_lx includes a width specifier so the value is
left-zero-padded to the appropriate width (depending
on the size of the PC on the target). VADDR_PRIx does
not zero-pad. Intentional change?

thanks
-- PMM

Reply via email to