Running ptrace under uml found the problem with gcc: UML's default environment
includes "." at the end of $PATH, and if you have that gcc doesn't search the
path for ld.
So I took "." out of the path, and it started working. Yay! (Cool stuff,
guys.)
Along the way, I found some interesting quirks:
1) I mentioned the gratuitous use of perl earlier. This is only for
--show-config, which could A) be replaced by a sed script, B) should
presumably be wrapped in CONFIG_IKCONFIG anyway.
I ripped it out of the makefile and it built fine without it. I'll see about
patching the makefile with the sed thing and/or the CONFIG option this
weekend, although I'm not good at makefiles...
2) Building under uclibc dies with a conflicting definition error, due to
arch/um/include/user.h containing "extern int strlcpy(char *, const char *,
int);", when uclibc's string.h contains:
extern size_t strlcpy(char *__restrict dst, const char *__restrict src,
size_t n) __THROW;
I yanked the strlcpy line from arch/um/include/user.h and everything built
fine without it (didn't even see any new warnings), both under both uclibc
(more or less 0.9.27, a cvs snapshot a couple weeks before release) and glibc
(knoppix 3.6, comes with glibc 2.3.2), possibly because it's still in
include/linux/string.h...
The resulting uclibc binaries seemed to work fine in both environments. I
could even run the uclibc one from within the uclibc chroot environment via
"./vmlinux rootfs=hostfs rootflags=/ rw init=/bin/sh" and it behaved pretty
well. (Overmount /proc and /dev/pts and life is good...)
3) Running my big build script, it hangs between ./configure and make of
binutils. No idea why yet. Just sits there spinning, with vmlinux eating
100% of the CPU, and if you leave it for half an hour it still won't advance,
and this is something that should only take a second or so...
4) I can get all sorts of things to segfault under uclibc with ptrace -f. For
example, just try ptrace -f on a shellscript and watch the segfaults fly. Is
it just me?
#4 makes #3 a bit harder to debug.
I'll try upgrading to -bs5 and see if that makes anything better.
Query: is a 2.6.10-bb likely in future, or should I just try -bk or -mm or
some such?
Rob
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues
Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek.
It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
