Oops, I meant
> +#define SYS_ify(syscall_name) (__NR_##syscall_name & 0xf)
pgpYQV9VCeoUb.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
> Hmm, I'm not seeing this (I did see something like this before). You
> *are* on
>
> e44b6b7eed squash! commencement: binutils-mesboot0: Support ARM.
>
> right?
Yes, but your gcc-mesboot.sh hardcoded a specific (older) path. Sorry.
With updated gcc-mesboot.sh I get:
Program terminated w
Danny Milosavljevic writes:
Hello Danny,
> Nice!
>
> Patch review:
>
>>+#if __ARM_EABI__
>>+#define CLEAR_CACHE(BEG,END) \
>>+{\
>>+ register unsigned long _beg __asm ("a1") = (unsigned lo
Danny Milosavljevic writes:
> Hi Janneke,
>
> I get
>
> gcc-mesboot.sh: line 20: 9438 Illegal instruction (core dumped) ./a.out
>
> │ 0x276b8 <__writev+32> svc 0x0014
> │
> │ >0x276bc <__writev+36> mov r4, r0
Hi Janneke,
I get
gcc-mesboot.sh: line 20: 9438 Illegal instruction (core dumped) ./a.out
│ 0x276b8 <__writev+32> svc 0x0014 │
│ >0x276bc <__writev+36> mov r4, r0 │
The actual problem is at the first lin
Hi Janneke,
Nice!
Patch review:
>+#if __ARM_EABI__
>+#define CLEAR_CACHE(BEG,END) \
>+{ \
>+ register unsigned long _beg __asm ("a1") = (unsigned long)(BEG);\
>+ register unsigned l
> > Does that mean there are no old reference binaries known to work on
> > Novena?
>
> Not if they are binaries from before Lenny (2009), unless we compile the
> kernel with OABI support, which as I understand from Danny, is a bad
> idea. Weird.
It backdoors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secc
Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes:
Hi Danny!
>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 22:52:57 +0100
>> Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>> Since this only affects the syscall interface and since also our
>> ELF headers specify EABI, I would just change the syscalls to EABI:
>> Just put the syscall number into r7 and use svc 0.
>
Ludovic Courtès writes:
Hello,
> I read the story, which I found rather fun and full of suspense, but I
> admit I was disappointed by the ending. :-)
>
> Jan Nieuwenhuizen skribis:
>
>> ...pretty familiar. So, what's going on here? Do the "woody"
>> binaries not run on novena?
>
> Does that m
Danny Milosavljevic writes:
Hey Danny,
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 22:52:57 +0100
> Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>
>> # CONFIG_OABI_COMPAT is not set
>>
>> ...certainly a lot easier to find when you know what you're looking
>> for.
>>
>> @Danny: I'm wondering if we could (should?) try a kernel with OABI
Hi Janneke,
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 22:52:57 +0100
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> # CONFIG_OABI_COMPAT is not set
>
> ...certainly a lot easier to find when you know what you're looking
> for.
>
> @Danny: I'm wondering if we could (should?) try a kernel with OABI
> compatibility? I suppose it would b
Vagrant Cascadian writes:
Hi!
> On 2021-02-13, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
[..]
>> ...pretty familiar. So, what's going on here? Do the "woody"
>> binaries not run on novena?
>
> My guess would be OABI (debian "arm" architecture) vs. EABI (debian
> "armel" or "armhf" architectures). The hardware m
On 2021-02-13, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Let's try to bisect where the problem is; we now have tree first
> candidates: gcc-core-mesboot0, glibc-mesboot0 and binutils-mesboot0.
> Luckily, Debian "woody" carries an almost compatible set. Doing
> someting like
>
> --8<---cut here---
Hi!
I read the story, which I found rather fun and full of suspense, but I
admit I was disappointed by the ending. :-)
Jan Nieuwenhuizen skribis:
> ...pretty familiar. So, what's going on here? Do the "woody"
> binaries not run on novena?
Does that mean there are no old reference binaries k
Hi,
Last month, we found that
--8<---cut here---start->8---
// prereq.c
#if defined __GNUC__ && defined __GNUC_MINOR__
# define __GNUC_PREREQ(maj, min) \
((__GNUC__ << 16) + __GNUC_MINOR__ >= ((maj) << 16) + (min))
#else
# define __GNUC_PREREQ(maj, min)
15 matches
Mail list logo
