On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 16:40, Richard Henderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Anton Johansson <[email protected]>
>
> Signed-off-by: Anton Johansson <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <[email protected]>
> Message-Id: <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <[email protected]>
> ---
> @@ -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
