[linux-sh:03178] Re: uclibc on sh3: Illegal instruction errors -- threading issue?

Sorry forgot to mention those. Gcc version is 3.3.2, binutils version is 
binutils-2.14.90.0.6, I built this using the toolchain.tar.gz package I 
pulled from CVS yesterday or the day before. To build the stable version of 
uclibc, I edited the Makefile in the toolchain.tar.gz's toolchain/gcc-3.3.x 
directory. That same Makefile however does not have an ARCH=sh3 option, so I 
set that to sh3 manually -- maybe that's where I was going wrong? During the 
build I got asked some questions for the uClibc config file, I specified 
architecture sh and cpu sh3 there, the rest I left at the defaults.

Henk


On Thursday 26 February 2004 00:47, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 11:22:38PM +0100, H.Brunsting wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have been trying to get a working shared uclibc environment on sh3
> > (exact cpu:  SH7709(A), HP 690/680/620LX/660LX) for a while now, but so
> > far I have been unsuccessful.
> > The CVS version of the uclibc toolchain can not produce any working
> > executables at all, every program segfaults.
>
> The current uClibc version in CVS has known shared library loader
> issues (I know I have broken mips and arm).  I'm still working on
> fixing that up.
>
> > I have also built a toolchain
> > with the stable version (0.9.26), it can produce working executables, but
> > if I try to run a shell (busybox ash or bash) I get an illegal
> > instruction error (static or dynamic doesn't make a difference).
>
> Odd.  uClibc 0.9.26 should work fine...
>
> > The strange thing is, I also built strace, file and some other apps, and
> > they seem to run fine. I can also run pretty much all busybox
> > executables, except the shells, which terminate with the error. I tried
> > to debug busybox by inserting printf lines, I've had ambiguous results,
> > making me expect it has something to do with threading. I've run the
> > uclibc test apps, it fails on ex7 of the pthread tests, the setjpm test
> > also fails, somewhat confirming my suspicion.
>
> I notice you have not mentioned gcc and binutils at all.  Could
> you share the details of your toolchain?  The fact you are
> getting illegal instruction errors does case a bit of suspicion
> on your toolchain.
>
>  -Erik
>
> --
> Erik B. Andersen             http://codepoet-consulting.com/
> --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--