From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36003) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V230H-0006JH-Uz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:37:36 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V230E-0003m7-2L for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:37:33 -0400 Received: from mail-yh0-x22f.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22f]:61808) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V230D-0003m1-T8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:37:29 -0400 Received: by mail-yh0-f47.google.com with SMTP id z20so218578yhz.34 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Richard Henderson Message-ID: <51F010D5.6080500@twiddle.net> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 07:37:25 -1000 From: Richard Henderson MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1374611274-19493-1-git-send-email-rth@twiddle.net> <51F0022E.7010507@twiddle.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] vdso for x86_64-linux-user List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: riku.voipio@iki.fi, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 07/24/2013 06:39 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 24 July 2013 17:34, Richard Henderson wrote: >> On 07/23/2013 11:15 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> On 23 July 2013 21:27, Richard Henderson wrote: >>>> This is a refresh of a patch I wrote in 2010, and have re-posted every >>>> 6 months thereafter. To my knowledge, it has never been reviewed. >>>> >>>> It supplies a replacement for the required x86-64 vdso. Anyone trying >>>> to emulate x86_64-linux on a host other than same will quickly run into >>>> the lack of a gettimeofday syscall, which glibc assumes is always >>>> provided by the vdso. >>> >>> Do we really need to mess with building an x86 shared object >>> and pulling it in, rather than the kind of ad-hoc way we >>> handle the ARM commpage? >> >> Isn't the arm ad-hoc really the much larger and uglier hack? > > Maaaybe, but it doesn't require a cross-compiler :-) The 7k binary is checked in to the repository, so a cross-compiler (or host compiler for x86_64, which is easier to come by) would only be needed when the source changes. ;-) r~