On Monday 28 May 2007, Blue Swirl wrote: > On 5/28/07, Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > target_phys_addr_t isn't really meaningful for userspace emulation. > > We don't have physical addresses, only target (target_ulong) and > > host (void *) virtual addresses. > > Vice versa, there are a some references in hw/*.c to target_ulong, > shouldn't they in general be target_phys_addr_t? PPC CPU register > definitions may be an exception.
Probably. I wouldn't be surprised if there are many places that break when guest physical addresses are larger than guest virtual addresses. Paul
