On 8 May 2014 16:51, Doug Kwan (關振德) <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Peter Maydell <[email protected]> > wrote: >> The general approach linux-user takes is "one kernel >> ABI to one QEMU binary". Maybe we could change that, >> but would there be any benefit to it? I can't really >> see one.
> May I ask what you would suggest to support ppc64le then? For signal > handling, we can check the ELF header to see if we use a function descriptor > or an entry for a signal handler when this is implemented for ppc64 in the > future. I don't understand the "redoing the base support" bit. Do it the same way we support everything else that can deal with two endianness settings -- handle the other TARGET_ENDIAN case in the translator. This is pretty straightforward with the new TCGMemOp TCG ops. thanks -- PMM
