Closed ghost closed 1 year ago
I don't quite understand what you mean, what do I need to do?
I'll fix it, wait a few minute. But I wonder why you seems so focus on execvp function???
done
If there is a little error in the code, I will be very uncomfortable.
Although it will not affect the program...
i think you do not need handle execve,execvp... execute x86 elf. binfmt has done it.
Yes, but I still want to handle it for plateform that don't use binfmt, or to be able to use another box86 copy than the one setup on binfmt.
run static linked, box86 will call a lot of nanosleep and then crash.
Why is this happening?
How would I know?! I don't know what you are launching. Also, static linked program are still not supported with box86.
I am running printf HelloWorld. I thought you know why it crashed...
well, static linked program is not a good idea with box86, as it defeat the "wrapped" concept at is at the heart of box86. I will not work on any workaround for static link program for now.
If box86 cannot run static linked programs, it doesn't matter.If box86 cannot use x86 printf, there may be a problem in box86.
launch ctest
in you box86 build folder. Does the tests runs ok?
If box86 cannot run static linked programs, it doesn't matter.If box86 cannot use x86 printf, there may be a problem in box86.
If the x86 printf is from a statically linked program, than no, it's not a problem as staticaly linked program are not supported by box86 for now.
it is ok.
If box86 cannot run static linked programs, it doesn't matter.If box86 cannot use x86 printf, there may be a problem in box86.
If the x86 printf is from a statically linked program, than no, it's not a problem as staticaly linked program are not supported by box86 for now.
You mean printf of x86 libc can run on box86?
What I mean is that I don't want to waste my time working on statically linked program, as it is not the main target of box86. printf is a complex function, while it may work, I'm unsure all the syscall needed are wired and correctly emulated. And again, this is out of scope for now.
To be clear:
If you can debug and point me to some obvious mystake, I'll fix it. But I don't want to debug that myself.
OK.
Yes, I'm aware, that why I have put the comments there (you have made more clear it's "TODO:" comment)