On Tue, 11 May 2010, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 05/11/2010 10:08 AM, Damion Yates wrote:
> > Also is there some magic in gnemul-x86 beyond being a set of x86
> > libs?
>
> No.
Okay, good to know.
> > Does it do any shortcutting to system calls in native rather than
> > sticking with the lib
On 05/11/2010 10:08 AM, Damion Yates wrote:
> Also is there some magic in gnemul-x86 beyond being a set of x86 libs?
No.
> Does it do any shortcutting to system calls in native rather than
> sticking with the libs under emulation more?
No.
> Could you explain what you did? I've tried the follo
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Laurent Desnogues wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Damion Yates
> wrote:
>
> > I can now run loads of linux binaries on my armlinux system (a Nokia
> > n900). I've tried tower toppler (http://toppler.sourceforge.net/)
> > which uses SDL (via X11) and this was surpr
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Damion Yates wrote:
[...]
> Should clone()/fork() work? Has anyone been able to run wine ./blah.exe
> under user-linux mode of qemu on arm or indeed any other non x86 based
> CPU ?
I forgot to mention NPTL is not supported for x86 which
will be an issue.
Laure
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Damion Yates wrote:
> I've grabbed the latest stable qemu and compiled under scratchbox. I
> hit an issue compiling it, with no __builtin__clear_cache() so linked in
> a kludge.c containing a call to __clear_cache() with the params passed
> as they would be to __
I've grabbed the latest stable qemu and compiled under scratchbox. I
hit an issue compiling it, with no __builtin__clear_cache() so linked in
a kludge.c containing a call to __clear_cache() with the params passed
as they would be to __builtin__clear_cache().
Firstly does this sound like it should
