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