From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:33263) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QOxVE-0005mg-2x for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 May 2011 15:42:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QOxVD-0006BE-4g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 May 2011 15:42:52 -0400 Received: from mail-qw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.216.45]:65483) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QOxVC-0006BA-U8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 May 2011 15:42:51 -0400 Received: by qwj8 with SMTP id 8so4272461qwj.4 for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 12:42:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Artyom Tarasenko Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 21:42:30 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [Qemu-devel] dynamically linked binaries under sparc-linux-user List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel , Blue Swirl Should it be possible to use dynamically linked binaries under sparc*-linux-user? Under qemu-system-sparc the Debian 4.08r1 initrd works fine, but: master$ sparc-linux-user/qemu-sparc -strace -L ../debian-4.08r1-initrd/ ../debian-4.08r1-initrd/bin/busybox 14004 uname(0x409ffbae) = 0 14004 brk(NULL) = 0x00063000 14004 access("/etc/ld.so.nohwcap",F_OK) = -1 errno=2 (No such file or directory) 14004 mmap(NULL,4096,PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS,-1,0) = 0x40a2c000 14004 access("/etc/ld.so.preload",R_OK) = -1 errno=2 (No such file or directory) 14004 open("/etc/ld.so.cache",O_RDONLY) = 3 14004 fstat64(3,0x409ff500) = 0 14004 mmap(NULL,195479,PROT_READ,MAP_PRIVATE,3,0) = 0x40a2d000 14004 close(3) = 0 Segmentation fault The strange thing here is that it loads ld.so.cache. The guest fs doesn't have it, but the host does: master$ ll ../../debian-4.08r1-initrd/etc/ld.so.cache /etc/ld.so.cache ls: cannot access ../../debian-4.08r1-initrd/etc/ld.so.cache: No such file or directory -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 195479 2011-03-17 13:48 /etc/ld.so.cache Isn't this wrong? -- Regards, Artyom Tarasenko solaris/sparc under qemu blog: http://tyom.blogspot.com/