RE: QSD8250 illegal instruction

[Daniel Walker <dwalker@codeaurora.org>]

On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 20:24 +0200, Le Tama wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> > Also LeTama produced a minimal busybox image. In a certain  
> > configuration it works.  
> > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/mobile-linux-discuss/2010-May/000087.html
> 
> On my side, here is what I did, all these tests with initrd only to
> avoid sdcard driver interaction:
> 
> 1) a busybox build with re-compiled executables with Codesourcery
> 2010q1 toolchain
> - Statically linked executables were crashing, 
> - Dynamically linked with arm v4 stdlib dlls, executables were
> apparently working. I'm not sure it was luck or a pattern, I didn't
> test a lots of executables in this configuration.
> - Dynamically linked with thumb2 stdlib dlls, executables were
> crashing
> 
> At this point, I began suspecting toolchain issue, I tried multiple
> ones including android pre-built and custom made without success.
> 
> 2) A simple C init executable that forks /execs a simple
> Write("helloworld") program.
> 	- Again, crashes, with multiple toolchains trials.
> 
> 3) As I thought that maybe my toolchains were not fine with glibc
> (crashes often in unwind code) , I rebuilt android for QSD8250_FFA,
> trimmed down init.rc to launch only adbd and debuggerd from the
> standard android init. This is the one that is producing the reports
> you saw in the emails. It has been verified successfully on a nexus
> one with the same kernel, modified to revert htcleo specific clocks
> and board.

What kind of kernel did you use? You say you wanted to "avoid sdcard
driver interaction" , but was the sdcard actually compiled out?

Daniel