Am 28.05.2014 19:21, schrieb Stefan Weil: > Am 28.05.2014 19:12, schrieb Richard Henderson: >> On 05/27/2014 03:37 PM, Stefan Weil wrote: >>> Hi Richard, >>> >>> this patch has broken the 64 bit version of QEMU for Windows: a Linux >>> guest starts booting, but hangs after "Booting the kernel.". I got a bug >>> report from a user and did a "git bisect" with a Tiny Core Linux guest / >>> cross build with default options / cross test with wine64 and default >>> options. Git reported this commit: >>> >>> 401c227b0a1134245ec61c6c5a9997cfc963c8e4 is the first bad commit >>> commit 401c227b0a1134245ec61c6c5a9997cfc963c8e4 >>> Author: Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> >>> Date: Thu Jul 25 07:16:52 2013 -1000 >>> >>> tcg-i386: Use new return-argument ld/st helpers >>> >>> Discontinue the jump-around-jump-to-jump scheme, trading it for a single >>> immediate move instruction. The two extra jumps always consume 7 bytes, >>> whereas the immediate move is either 5 or 7 bytes depending on where the >>> code_gen_buffer gets located. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> >>> >>> :040000 040000 dfd9a66c85713cd1886a3342de1e9ac95d7ea43f >>> df8673dea69bc89cc2cc979aa24415e3fea4ed53 M include >>> :040000 040000 1f7cd5291f2c69b4126c63bd567c6b106eb332c9 >>> 87e7ece766168dda860b513dc97fe5af28ec2c4b M tcg >>> >>> 32 bit versions of QEMU for Windows don't show this problem. >> >> I'm having problem booting any iso with wine at the moment: >> >> $ wine64 ./x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64.exe -L ./pc-bios \ >> -vnc :1 -cdrom ../../../Downloads/TinyCore-current.iso >> Assertion failed! >> >> Program: Z:\home\rth\work\qemu\bld-w64\x86_64-softmmu\qemu-system-x86_64.exe >> File: /home/rth/work/qemu/qemu/qemu-coroutine-lock.c, Line 91 >> >> Expression: qemu_in_coroutine() >> >> abnormal program termination >> >> Naturally, this isn't happening with a native linux boot with the same >> arguments. >> >> But I can boot an alpha rom: >> >> $ wine64 ./alpha-softmmu/qemu-system-alpha.exe -L ./pc-bios/ -nographic >> PCI: 00:00:0 class 0300 id 1013:00b8 >> PCI: region 0: 10000000 >> PCI: region 1: 12000000 >> PCI: 00:01:0 class 0200 id 8086:100e >> PCI: region 0: 12020000 >> PCI: region 1: 0000c000 >> PCI: 00:02:0 class 0101 id 1095:0646 >> PCI: region 0: 0000c040 >> PCI: region 1: 0000c048 >> PCI: region 3: 0000c04c >>>>> >> >> Which says to me that it's rather unlikely that this basic load/store patch >> could be the problem.
Well, git bisect found it, and it definitely makes a difference whether this patch is applied or not. Typical problems with w64 are pointer / long size (pointers are 8 byte, long integers are only 4 byte) or calling conventions (they differ from w32 or Linux). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_calling_conventions#Microsoft_x64_calling_convention or http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms235286.aspx. Stefan
