[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PULL v2 00/37] Linux user for 5.0 patches

From: Laurent Vivier
Subject: Re: [PULL v2 00/37] Linux user for 5.0 patches
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 21:33:55 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0

Le 18/03/2020 à 20:46, Richard Henderson a écrit :
> On 3/18/20 6:57 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> My set of "run ls for various architectures" linux-user tests
>> https://people.linaro.org/~peter.maydell/linux-user-test-pmm-20200114.tgz
>> fails with this pullreq:
>> e104462:bionic:linux-user-test-0.3$
>> /home/petmay01/linaro/qemu-for-merges/build/all-linux-static/x86_64-linux-user/qemu-x86_64
>> -L ./gnemul/qemu-x86_64 x86_64/ls -l dummyfile
>> qemu: 0x40008117e9: unhandled CPU exception 0x101 - aborting
> I replicated this on aarch64 host, with an existing build tree and merging in
> the pull request.  It does not occur when building the same merged tree from
> scratch.
> I have no idea what the reason for this is.  Laurent suggested a file in the
> build tree that is shadowed by one in the source tree, but to me that makes no
> sense for this case:
> It's target/i386/cpu.h that defines EXCP_SYSCALL (renumbered in this series
> from 0x100 to 0x101), which is not in the build tree.  It is
> linux-user/i386/cpu_loop.c that consumes EXCP_SYSCALL, and it is also not in
> the build tree.
> However, from the error message above, it's clear that cpu_loop.o has not been
> rebuilt properly.

I removed this series from the final pull request as the problem doesn't
seem related to change I made in configure.

I didn't find from where the problem comes.

Could you check if you are always able to reproduce the problem with master?


reply via email to

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