gem5: fix vs qemu description formating

README.adoc

@@ -4768,16 +4768,22 @@ Like QEMU, gem5 also has a syscall emulation mode (SE), but in this tutorial we
 
 * advantages of gem5:
 ** simulates a generic more realistic pipelined and optionally out of order CPU cycle by cycle, including a realistic DRAM memory access model with latencies, caches and page table manipulations. This allows us to:
++
+--
 *** do much more realistic performance benchmarking with it, which makes absolutely no sense in QEMU, which is purely functional
 *** make certain functional observations that are not possible in QEMU, e.g.:
 **** use Linux kernel APIs that flush cache memory like DMA, which are crucial for driver development. In QEMU, the driver would still work even if we forget to flush caches.
 **** spectre / meltdown:
 ***** https://www.mail-archive.com/gem5-users@gem5.org/msg15319.html
 ***** https://github.com/jlpresearch/gem5/tree/spectre-test
+--
 +
-It is not of course truly cycle accurate, as that
+It is not of course truly cycle accurate, as that:
++
+--
 ** would require exposing proprietary information of the CPU designs: link:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17454955/can-you-check-performance-of-a-program-running-with-qemu-simulator/33580850#33580850[]
 ** would make the simulation even slower TODO confirm, by how much
+--
 +
 but the approximation is reasonable.
 +