[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: Artyom Tarasenko
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: qemu-ppc can't run static uClibc binaries.
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:38:01 +0100

2010/2/17 Blue Swirl <address@hidden>:
> 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.

And still based on preferably old enogh kernel version which wasn't qemu-aware.
The comments in the kenel source like "this could be a qemu bug" from the Rob's
mail "proper fix"
scare me.

Artyom Tarasenko

solaris/sparc under qemu blog: http://tyom.blogspot.com/

reply via email to

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