On Thursday 18 February 2010 05:38:01 Artyom Tarasenko wrote: > 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.
Unless sparc is also using the zilog serial chip (the driver for which has "pmac" in its name), that was a power macintosh issue. :) And yeah, qemu's behavior was apparently a bit iffy with regard to what the hardware was actually doing, but not beyond what the datasheets said could happen, and the kernel guys put in a workaround... Rob -- Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds
