[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: Richard Henderson
Subject: Re: [PULL v2 00/37] Linux user for 5.0 patches
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 14:05:53 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1

On 3/23/20 1:33 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> 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?

I could not replicate it today with master at 787f82407c5.


reply via email to

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