From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19aKyl-0008I6-6t for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 15:51:51 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19aKxT-0007w7-K8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 15:50:32 -0400 Received: from gw.netgem.com ([195.68.2.34] helo=gw.dev.netgem.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aKwZ-0007rI-Q7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 15:49:35 -0400 Received: from jma1.dev.netgem.com ([172.17.17.138] ident=jma) by gw.dev.netgem.com with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19aKwc-0001Ci-00 for ; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 21:49:38 +0200 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] ARM From: Jocelyn Mayer In-Reply-To: <20030709183518.GA24671@nevyn.them.org> References: <20030709183518.GA24671@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1057780432.10296.72.camel@jma1.dev.netgem.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: 09 Jul 2003 21:53:53 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu mailing list On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 20:35, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > I was just playing with the ARM support, it's great to see it taking > shape :) Fabrice, are you still investigating it, or does it work for > you? My local ARM setup crashes a few hundred instructions into ld.so; > a loop runs for too long and hits the top of the stack. Hello, Maybe a flag problem.. As I was looking the overflow flag calculation, while trying to fix it in my PPC emulation, I noticed that this flag should be masked with (1 << 31) to be correct. Fabrice, could you confirm this point ? It seems to work well in my PPC code... It may also comes from the fact that the qemu Elf loader builds a "buggy" stack. I don't known anything about the ABI for the ARM, but I noticed that the stack wasn't aligned properly on PPC and that some informations were missing, but I don't really know if those infos are vital or not. Even in x86 emulation, the stack is really different from the one built by the Linux kernel (I compared with a linux-2.4.21 kernel). I fixed some crashes, changing this code to do the same as the kernel, but dynamic x86 loading is now buggy with that patch... Regards. -- Jocelyn Mayer