On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 22:02 +0300, Blue Swirl wrote: > On 10/10/07, Fabrice Bellard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > > Fabrice Bellard 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...). > > > > > > I would think this feature will be limited to platforms which can handle > > > 32bit and 64bit binaries with a single personality. > > > > I am not sure it is a common case ! > > > > However, I suggest to emulate a 32 bit user linux system with a 64 bit > > guest CPU running in 32 bit compatibily mode. It would be useful to test > > 64 bit CPUs in 32 bit compatibility mode. The only required modification > > in linux user is to rename target_ulong so that it can have a different > > size of the CPU word default size. > > I think this would be sufficient for the Sparc and this way there > would be no need to convert the structures. Brilliant! > > Should we revert the elfload32 patch? What about PPC?
We can keep the elfload32 for now, it does not hurt. This approach is OK for PPC too. And as I got some 32 bits programs running in the 64 bits linux-user emulator, the same programs behavior can be compared to find eventual issues... -- J. Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Never organized