From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Ife8G-0004C1-C5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:10:00 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Ife8E-0004AT-9C
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:09:59 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ife8D-0004AE-WA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:09:58 -0400
Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.175])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <blauwirbel@gmail.com>) id 1Ife8D-0003aU-K0
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:09:57 -0400
Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m2so281538uge
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f43fc5580710100909q7476748ax8e0d5ce270aa59cd@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:09:56 +0300
From: "Blue Swirl" <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: fix run of 32 bits Linux executables on 64 bits
	targets
In-Reply-To: <470C8AD9.6000002@bellard.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <1192002128.9976.186.camel@rapid> <470C8AD9.6000002@bellard.org>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 10/10/07, Fabrice Bellard <fabrice@bellard.org> wrote:
> J. Mayer wrote:
> > Following the patches done for elfload32, it appeared to me that there
> > were still problems that would prevent 32 bits executables to run on 64
> > bits target in linux user mode emulation.
>  > [...]
>
> Are you sure it is a good idea to try to add 32 bit executable support
> to a 64 bit target ? In the end you will need to write a 64 bit to 32
> bit linux syscall converter which would mean duplicating all the
> linux-user code of the corresponding 32 bit target (think of ioctls with
> strutures, signals frames, etc...).

True. But I hope some day we have Solaris binary execution support,
and we need this 32+64 mode for that. I think Linux can emulate
Solaris system calls.