On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 11:59:11AM +, Paul Brook wrote:
> > Oh this is happening with x86_64-bsd-user on the same arch so I'd say
> > (abi_ulong)-1 would be the same as ~0ul (and still cause the assert.)
>
> No. These two are different when sizeof(abi_ulong) < sizeof(long).
Yeah sorry I meant
> Oh this is happening with x86_64-bsd-user on the same arch so I'd say
> (abi_ulong)-1 would be the same as ~0ul (and still cause the assert.)
No. These two are different when sizeof(abi_ulong) < sizeof(long).
Paul
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:45:48PM +0200, Juergen Lock wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 01:33:15PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > On 03/30/2010 01:09 PM, Juergen Lock wrote:
> > > Oh sorry if that was not clear, things go into swap if I _replace_ the
> > > endaddr ~0ul (which caused the assert
On 03/30/2010 01:42 PM, Juergen Lock wrote:
> So I'd say the real problem is page_set_flags() has a bug that makes
> it allocate too much if the range is the last allowed page...
It doesn't, as far as I can see. I added this range by hand to page_init
and the effect was exactly as I supposed on
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 01:33:15PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 03/30/2010 01:09 PM, Juergen Lock wrote:
> > Oh sorry if that was not clear, things go into swap if I _replace_ the
> > endaddr ~0ul (which caused the assert) with the max value the assert
> > still tolerates i.e.
> > ((abi
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:09:47PM +0200, Juergen Lock wrote:
> In article <4bb2540b.90...@twiddle.net> you write:
> >On 03/30/2010 12:16 PM, Juergen Lock wrote:
> >> I first tried to replace the endaddr in the !h2g_valid(endaddr) case with
> >>((abi_ulong)1 << L1_MAP_ADDR_SPACE_BITS) - 1
> >>
On 03/30/2010 01:09 PM, Juergen Lock wrote:
> Oh sorry if that was not clear, things go into swap if I _replace_ the
> endaddr ~0ul (which caused the assert) with the max value the assert
> still tolerates i.e.
> ((abi_ulong)1 << L1_MAP_ADDR_SPACE_BITS) - 1
> which in this case seems to be 0x
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:54:03PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On 3/30/10, Juergen Lock wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 09:04:28PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote:
> > > On 3/25/10, Juergen Lock wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > Now that qemu git head works again (thanx Aurelien! :) I've finishe
In article <4bb2540b.90...@twiddle.net> you write:
>On 03/30/2010 12:16 PM, Juergen Lock wrote:
>> I first tried to replace the endaddr in the !h2g_valid(endaddr) case with
>> ((abi_ulong)1 << L1_MAP_ADDR_SPACE_BITS) - 1
>> if TARGET_ABI_BITS > L1_MAP_ADDR_SPACE_BITS (which comes from the con
On 3/30/10, Juergen Lock wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 09:04:28PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote:
> > On 3/25/10, Juergen Lock wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > Now that qemu git head works again (thanx Aurelien! :) I've finished
> > > the FreeBSD qemu-devel port update patch/shar that made me unc
On 03/30/2010 12:16 PM, Juergen Lock wrote:
> I first tried to replace the endaddr in the !h2g_valid(endaddr) case with
> ((abi_ulong)1 << L1_MAP_ADDR_SPACE_BITS) - 1
> if TARGET_ABI_BITS > L1_MAP_ADDR_SPACE_BITS (which comes from the condition
> of the assert in page_set_flags() that was tr
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 09:04:28PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On 3/25/10, Juergen Lock wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Now that qemu git head works again (thanx Aurelien! :) I've finished
> > the FreeBSD qemu-devel port update patch/shar that made me uncover
> > the bug:
> > http://people.freeb
On 3/25/10, Juergen Lock wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Now that qemu git head works again (thanx Aurelien! :) I've finished
> the FreeBSD qemu-devel port update patch/shar that made me uncover
> the bug:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~nox/qemu/qemu-devel-20100323.patch
> resp.
> http://peopl
Hi!
Now that qemu git head works again (thanx Aurelien! :) I've finished
the FreeBSD qemu-devel port update patch/shar that made me uncover
the bug:
http://people.freebsd.org/~nox/qemu/qemu-devel-20100323.patch
resp.
http://people.freebsd.org/~nox/qemu/qemu-devel-20100323.shar
T
14 matches
Mail list logo
