From owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 1 17:19:29 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B07B11065688 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 17:19:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de) Received: from smtp.kn-bremen.de (gelbbaer.kn-bremen.de [78.46.108.116]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34B198FC0A for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 17:19:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kn-bremen.de (Postfix, from userid 10) id A5C7C1E00178; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 19:19:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from triton8.kn-bremen.de (noident@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by triton8.kn-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o31H64S0004606; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 19:06:04 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from nox@triton8.kn-bremen.de) Received: (from nox@localhost) by triton8.kn-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o31H63KE004605; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 19:06:03 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from nox) From: Juergen Lock Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 19:06:03 +0200 To: Paul Brook Message-ID: <20100401170603.GA4447@triton8.kn-bremen.de> References: <20100325204423.GA46954@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <20100330201734.GA2678@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <201004011259.12365.paul@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201004011259.12365.paul@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Juergen Lock , Blue Swirl , freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org, Andreas Tobler , Toni Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu git head 20100323 on FreeBSD - qemu-devel port update for testing X-BeenThere: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Emulators of other operating systems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:19:29 -0000 On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 11:59:11AM +0000, 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 in this case that caused the assert. (x86_64-bsd-user on same-arch host.) Cheers, Juergen