gem5 vs qemu: better logging

README.adoc

@@ -10437,6 +10437,7 @@ but the approximation is reasonable.
 It is used mostly for microarchitecture research purposes: when you are making a new chip technology, you don't really need to specialize enormously to an existing microarchitecture, but rather develop something that will work with a wide range of future architectures.
 ** runs are deterministic by default, unlike QEMU which has a special <<qemu-record-and-replay>> mode, that requires first playing the content once and then replaying
 ** gem5 ARM at least appears to implement more low level CPU functionality than QEMU, e.g. QEMU only added EL2 in 2018: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/42824706/qemu-system-aarch64-entering-el1-when-emulating-a53-power-up See also: xref:arm-exception-levels[xrefstyle=full]
+** gem5 offers more advanced logging, even for non micro architectural things which QEMU models in some way, e.g. <<qemu-trace-memory-accesses>>, because QEMU's binary translation optimizations reduce visibility
 * disadvantages of gem5:
 ** slower than QEMU, see: xref:benchmark-linux-kernel-boot[xrefstyle=full]
 +