2010/2/17 Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Rob Landley <r...@landley.net> 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" (http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2010-January/079436.html) scare me. -- Regards, Artyom Tarasenko solaris/sparc under qemu blog: http://tyom.blogspot.com/
