Am 11.11.2015 um 09:54 schrieb Markus Armbruster: > Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: >> On 25 August 2015 at 15:17, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> Stumbled over this while throwing away old mail. Andreas, what do you >>> think? >> >> Seems right to me -- I suspect the original properties code was >> written with the assumption that the property field would be >> inside the device struct (and so offsets are small). The array >> properties code breaks that assumption by allocating a separate >> lump of memory with the properties in it; so now there's no >> guarantee that the two pointers being subtracted will be >> within 4G of each other. >> >> Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> >> >> Arguably for consistency the 'arrayoffset' struct member should >> also be a ptrdiff_t, though our current uses of it are such >> that it'll always be within int range. > > Andreas?
Found it archived. I honestly don't think it's necessary in practice to have 64-bit offsets on 64-bit host, but it builds okay, queued. Testing got stuck in ahci though, investigating. Thanks, Andreas -- SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
