From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43406)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <sw@weilnetz.de>) id 1VHo3U-0007n0-Jy
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 00:54:06 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <sw@weilnetz.de>) id 1VHo3O-0006Ly-9b
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 00:54:00 -0400
Received: from v220110690675601.yourvserver.net ([37.221.199.173]:56191)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <sw@weilnetz.de>) id 1VHo3O-0006Lp-3k
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 00:53:54 -0400
Message-ID: <52295FD4.2030207@weilnetz.de>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 06:53:40 +0200
From: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5228EB17.4050209@weilnetz.de>
	<CAFEAcA-vgr53Q7bMuCEuvaO1KbPARsbeHAnF+cmOx5ALsdGVug@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA-vgr53Q7bMuCEuvaO1KbPARsbeHAnF+cmOx5ALsdGVug@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Bug] qemu-sparc64 broken
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

Am 05.09.2013 23:32, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> On 5 September 2013 21:35, Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de> wrote:
>> In a first analysis of this, I noticed that it is impossible to run
>> qemu-sparc64
>> under gdb (raised fatal signal).
> You probably just need to let the signals go through to
> the target... I noticed that it had a tendency to do lots
> of (presumably safely handled) segfaulting while running;
> didn't look at why this happens.

After lots of SIGSEGV, the program indeed finishes successfully,
so my report was wrong - SIGSEGV is not a fatal signal for sparc64.
That's interesting - thank you for this information.

Now I can debug. I'll send a patch when it's fixed.

Regards,
Stefan