From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1BtR2u-0007tA-9o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 07 Aug 2004 09:15:36 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1BtR2s-0007sy-I1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 07 Aug 2004 09:15:36 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BtR2s-0007sv-FA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 07 Aug 2004 09:15:34 -0400 Received: from [62.241.160.73] (helo=colossus.systems.pipex.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BtQzB-0007h3-08 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 07 Aug 2004 09:11:45 -0400 From: Paul Brook Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu-arm in various flavours and circumstances Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 14:11:40 +0100 References: <20040807123701.GA9762@xi.wantstofly.org> In-Reply-To: <20040807123701.GA9762@xi.wantstofly.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200408071411.40868.paul@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Saturday 07 August 2004 13:37, Lennert Buytenhek wrote: > OK, I built a number of different ARM binaries with different toolchains, > a few different versions of qemu, and ran them under a few different > circumstances. > The results > ----------- > bigendian: > - The bigendian binaries (armv?eb, armv?teb) always result in > "Error loading $NAME_OF_BINARY", under every version of qemu > (I didn't muck with WORDS_BIGENDIAN.) I haven't tried big-endian binaries. I suspect you won't be able to run both big and little endian binaries with the same version of qemu. > setarch i686: > - An FC2-compiled qemu-arm, when ran on an FC2 host without setarch i686, > under each and every circumstance gives a sig11. > - An FC2-compiled qemu-arm, when ran on an FC2 host with setarch i686, > always behaves the same as a RH73-compiled qemu-arm when ran on an FC2 > host. Meaning, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't -- see below. I suspect this is a generic qemu problem, not specific to qemu-arm. > When using either a RH73-compiled qemu or setarch i686: > - All arm-unknown-linux-gnu and armv4e-redhat-linux toolchains produce > binaries that work under qemu. > - There is no difference in results between qemu 0.6.0 and qemu 20040806. > - There is no difference in results between armv5e and armv5te binaries. > - All armv5(t)e binaries give a sig11 under qemu 0.6.0 and qemu 20040806, > but under qemu 20040806 plus Paul's three patches they give sig4: > "qemu: uncaught target signal 4 (Illegal instruction) - exiting" armv5 support is still incomplete, even with my patches. Thumb state, and the interworking branch instruction (bx) are still missing. I'm working on it (slowly). A side-effect of my armv5e patch is that more illegal/unrecognised instructions are detected. Without the patch they are probably misinterpreted as a nonsensical form of a different instruction. Paul