Chihwei backed out both from android-x86
On 2009-8-2, at 16:54, Chen Yang <sunsety...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yes, I have run it.
> 10482 has 2 issues, my 2nd item fixed one issue. I don't know
> whether current framework has the right kind of implementation that
> may expose the 2nd issue of that. At least, from what I have run, I
> haven't found problems so far.
> --
> Chen
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Yi Sun <beyo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Have you run the image? There should be more issues, the 10482 was
> not fixed yet (not sure about today's status), the init.rc has new
> entries need to add ....
> Yi
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Chen Yang <sunsety...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Just finished one round of proof build of the public AOSP code:
> here is the summary:
> 1.missing one _BYTE_ORDER define in bionic/arch-x86/include/machine/
> _types.h
>
> --- a/libc/arch-x86/include/machine/_types.h
> +++ b/libc/arch-x86/include/machine/_types.h
> @@ -119,5 +119,6 @@ typedef void * __wctype_t;
> /* Feature test macros */
> #define __HAVE_CPUINFO
> #define __HAVE_MUTEX
> +#define _BYTE_ORDER _LITTLE_ENDIAN
>
> #endif /* _I386__TYPES_H_ */
>
> 2. some problem on x86 by recent check in dalvik:
> project dalvik/
> diff --git a/vm/oo/Class.c b/vm/oo/Class.c
> index a5d42eb..c47dff4 100644
> --- a/vm/oo/Class.c
> +++ b/vm/oo/Class.c
> @@ -4276,13 +4276,13 @@ noverify:
> */
> assert(f->byteOffset >= CLASS_SMALLEST_OFFSET);
> assert((f->byteOffset & (CLASS_OFFSET_ALIGNMENT - 1))
> == 0);
> +#define CLASS_BIT_SHIFT_COUNT(byteOffset) (((unsigned int)
> (byteOffset) - CLASS_SMALLEST_OFFSET) / CLASS_OFFSET_ALIGNMENT)
> + if(CLASS_BIT_SHIFT_COUNT(f->byteOffset) >=
> CLASS_BITS_PER_WORD) {
> + clazz->refOffsets = CLASS_WALK_SUPER;
> + break;
> + }
> u4 newBit = CLASS_BIT_FROM_OFFSET(f->byteOffset);
> - if (newBit != 0) {
> - clazz->refOffsets |= newBit;
> - } else {
> - clazz->refOffsets = CLASS_WALK_SUPER;
> - break;
> - }
> + clazz->refOffsets |= newBit;
> f++;
> }
> }
>
> 3. applypatch depends on libmtdutils.a, which doesn't exsit on x86.
> so maybe can disable it.
> project build/
> diff --git a/tools/applypatch/Android.mk b/tools/applypatch/Android.mk
> index fe317ff..8f494b6 100644
> --- a/tools/applypatch/Android.mk
> +++ b/tools/applypatch/Android.mk
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>
> ifneq ($(TARGET_SIMULATOR),true)
>
> +ifeq ($(TARGET_ARCH),arm)
> LOCAL_PATH := $(call my-dir)
> include $(CLEAR_VARS)
>
> @@ -48,4 +49,5 @@ LOCAL_STATIC_LIBRARIES += libz
>
> include $(BUILD_HOST_EXECUTABLE)
>
> +endif # TARGET_ARCH == arm
> endif # !TARGET_SIMULATOR
>
> 4. preloaded-classes/init.rc fixes originally known to x86.
>
> hope it helps.
> --
> Chen
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Chen Yang <sunsety...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Cool. would you like to provide some more detail about the issue?
> Thanks.
> --
> Chen
>
>
> On 7/30/09, Chih-Wei <cwhu...@linux.org.tw> wrote:
>
> The android-x86 build broken due to upstream changes (donut merged) is
> fixed.
> Now you can get a workable tree and enjoy Donut on x86.
>
> You may try to repo sync. But the changes are huge so I'm not sure
> whether you can succeed or not. If you encounter conflicts but don't
> know how to fix, I suggest you redo repo init and then sync a fresh
> tree.
>
> Besides, wifi support has been integrated. Ath5k, ath9k modules work
> fine. Other drivers need further testing. As always, test results are
> welcome.
>
>
> --
> Chih-Wei
> Android-x86
> http://code.google.com/p/android-x86/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Android-x86
> http://code.google.com/p/android-x86/
>
>
>
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
unsubscribe: android-porting+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
website: http://groups.google.com/group/android-porting
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
