[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: qemu-ppc can't run static uClibc binaries.

From: Blue Swirl
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: qemu-ppc can't run static uClibc binaries.
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 22:46:15 +0200

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Rob Landley <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 February 2010 09:45:48 Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 02/17/2010 10:24 AM, Artyom Tarasenko wrote:
>> >> I've also got a bunch of "sort of working, but not well enough
>> >> to run builds natively under" targets on top of that (arm big
>> >> endian, sh4, sparc...)
>> >
>> > What's not well enough on sparc?
>>  From http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/63610:
>> On Linux, sparc-softmmu can boot Linux (sparc-test) image, but QEMU
>> crashes just before command line. On OpenBSD, the same test reaches
>> command prompt.

That's status for sparc host. On x86 host, everything should work fine
except for a few known issues.

> Actually the sparc-test image from http://wiki.qemu.org/download/sparc-
> test-0.2.tar.gz boots and gets me a command line just fine, and I've never had
> it die with strange errors that look like mismatched system calls and such.
> (Under ubuntu 8.04, using qemu-git from a week or so back, but this behavior's
> been consistent since I first tried it.0
> That image is A) built with an unknown compiler, B) running glibc (not
> uClibc), c) a crippled toy image.  (It's a read-only root filesystem that
> hasn't got a mount point for /proc.  Obviously never mean to actually be used
> for anything but very simple smoke testing.)
> But it does imply that qemu is capable of decently running _something_ on
> sparc, so the problems I'm seeing are more likely to be uClibc or toolchain
> issues.
> Alas the image has no hint how to reproduce it.  Doesn't say what toolchain it
> was built with, what kernel .config was used, and so on.  (The arm one at 
> least
> had /proc/config.gz...)
> Well, actually if you "mount -t proc proc lost+found" and then cat
> lost+found/version it says gcc version 2.95.4 20010319 (prerelease).  So it
> was built with a random cvs snapshot of egcs from 2001, configured who knows
> how, and it's running a 2.6.11 kernel from 5 years ago (again with who knows
> what .config).  So my problem could be that I'm using a kernel 22 versions
> newer, or I'm using gcc 4.2 toolchain, or that either is configured 
> differently.

The compiler was probably Debian gcc 2.95 package as distributed that
time, not some random cvs snapshot of egcs. I can't find the original
kernel config because I have edited it since, but the attached version
should not be too far from it. The kernel itself is straight 2.6.11
plus this patch to fix TCX display. I think the ramdisk contents are
from the user emulator test set, I didn't build those.

Perhaps we should build a new set of test suites for all architectures
from a single known stack of tools and sources.

Attachment: config.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data

Attachment: linux-2.6.11-sparc-tcxfixes.patch
Description: Source code patch

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]