Hi,
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Andrew Barr wrote:
> The virtual keyboard and mouse appear to be confused after loadvm'ing on
> Windows XP SP2 (and 2000 SP4 as well) guest (Qemu CVS on Linux host). The
> control key appears to be stuck down. While looking for something unrelated
> in the mailing list
The virtual keyboard and mouse appear to be confused after loadvm'ing on
Windows XP SP2 (and 2000 SP4 as well) guest (Qemu CVS on Linux host). The
control key appears to be stuck down. While looking for something unrelated
in the mailing list archives, I found these:
http://lists.gnu.org/archiv
Hi,
still no luck with x86_64 on last night CVS build...
* CentOS 3.6 x86_64:
- UP won't boot with or without kqemu. Log file is attached.
- Booting with "-kernel-kqemu" is even worse: the guest kernel won't start
at all (at least it does not print anything).
- Booting with "-smp 2" mak
Paul Brook wrote:
> Better would be to lobby ARM to allow open source emulators.
> "I'd like to use ARM hardware for , but qemu doesn't support
> ARMv7 so I'm thinking of using PowerPC instead" is a particularly good
> argument ;-)
I suspect ARM's business model - dependent wholly on licensing
So it's a purely contractual issue as opposed to an IP issue.Is a party to this contract allowed to write a disassembler? I can imagine a very nice disassembler feature that would explain in detail how each instruction it decodes works...
Of course no matter how such documentation were to escape, y
> I could understand a claim if someone acquired ARM's documentation
> under an agreement to not produce an emulator.
That's exactly where the restriction comes from.
Theoretically it may be possible to reverse engineer a good proportion of
ARMv6 from other sources (eg. gcc). However if that w
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 07:37:50PM +, sofar wrote:
>
> I kind of like it and wish that some lists would allow me to set it as a
> user-preference - there are so many lists and I really never ever want to
> reply to *just* the person (ever, ever, ever).
>
> reply-to the list is good for me
>
Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> qemu cvs only supports ARMv5TE.
>>
>> The ARMv6 architecture is released under a more restrictive
>> licence than ARMv5. The Arm licencing department have explicitly
>> prohibited the distribution of open source ARMv6/v7 emulators.
>>
>> > We're trying to
Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The ARMv6 architecture is released under a more restrictive licence than
> ARMv5. The Arm licencing department have explicitly prohibited the
> distribution of open source ARMv6/v7 emulators.
>
> We're trying to get this restriction lifted, but so far to
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 09:24:59PM +0200, Pascal Terjan wrote:
> On 3/29/06, John Davidorff Pell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > P.S. Why does the list set the reply-to header, isn't that supposed
> > to be a Bad Thing??
>
> Only according to some people :)
> I hate when I reply to a list and the m
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:24:59 +0200, "Pascal Terjan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/29/06, John Davidorff Pell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> P.S. Why does the list set the reply-to header, isn't that supposed
>> to be a Bad Thing?
>
> Only according to some people :)
> I hate when I reply to
On Wednesday 29 March 2006 18:03, John Davidorff Pell wrote:
> I was just thinking that by enabling the required feature
> individually, someone else could choose -O0 and not have to
> investigate why it fails. Its not like its a big deal, though. :-)
Like most things dyngen relies on this isn't a
On 3/29/06, John Davidorff Pell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> P.S. Why does the list set the reply-to header, isn't that supposed
> to be a Bad Thing™?
Only according to some people :)
I hate when I reply to a list and the message goes to the guy and not
to the list... (If someone enforces Reply-To
I was just thinking that by enabling the required feature
individually, someone else could choose -O0 and not have to
investigate why it fails. Its not like its a big deal, though. :-)
JP
P.S. Why does the list set the reply-to header, isn't that supposed
to be a Bad Thing™?
On 29 Mar 2
Thanks, Paul. That explains it...
I find it strange that ARM would restrict emulation of their architecture
-- that could hardly pose a threat to their business, I would say.
Anyhow, thanks for the note.
- Wolfgang
Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 29.03.2006 16:39:12:
> On Wednesday 29
I've posted a patch that adds SSE3 instruction emulation to QEMU some
weeks ago, but it accidentally contained some silly changes. Sorry
for that.
I'm currently very short on time, so I've just attached a fixed
version. To complete PNI, both the monitor and the mwait instruction,
and also
On Wednesday 29 March 2006 13:33, Wolfgang Schildbach wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> Running an ARM application in user mode emulation (qemu CVS version of
> 3-15-2006), my code crashes at an SMMUL instruction (this is part of the
> ARMv6 instruction set). A brief glance at translate.c and op.c seems to
Hi,
answering to myself again ;)
Now, I found where the PC is wrongly set to 0x0:
In translate-all.c, end of function cpu_restore_state() (lines
with '+' are debug output added):
#elif defined(TARGET_MIPS)
+printf("PC before: 0x%08x, j: %d, OPC_BUF_SIZE: %d\n",
env->PC, j, OPC_BUF_SIZE);
Hi,
texi2html prints several warnings when it processes qemu-doc.texi.
Some of these warnings are fixed with my patch.
Merci
Stefan
diff -u -b -B -u -r1.81 qemu-doc.texi
--- qemu-doc.texi 20 Feb 2006 00:35:00 - 1.81
+++ qemu-doc.texi 29 Mar 2006 12:04:36 -
@@ -903,7 +90
Hello list,
Running an ARM application in user mode emulation (qemu CVS version of
3-15-2006), my code crashes at an SMMUL instruction (this is part of the
ARMv6 instruction set). A brief glance at translate.c and op.c seems to
suggest that qemu does not emulate that instruction (yet). Before I
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 08:26:27PM -0800, John Davidorff Pell wrote:
> Out of curiosity, wouldn't it be better to specifically request that
> feature of gcc, with one of its myriad options, rather than forcing a
> rather large optimization sweep? I'm sure that -O2 is good generally,
> but usi
Hi,
if nobody has an idea regarding this, any hint where to
search or how to debug this the best way?
What confuses me is that qemu.log correctly shows
pc=0x80010400 but qemu monitor register info and GDB show pc=0.
Thanks
Dirk
Dirk Behme wrote:
Hi,
now, after ARM, I try to debug some l
22 matches
Mail list logo
