Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #33479 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-10-30 23:21 -0500 |
| Last post | 2021-11-05 09:09 +0000 |
| Articles | 8 on this page of 28 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2021-10-30 23:21 -0500
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com> - 2021-11-01 06:56 +0000
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-11-01 09:44 +0200
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2021-11-01 23:14 +0100
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-11-03 10:33 +0200
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-03 10:36 +0000
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2021-11-03 20:34 +0100
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2021-11-03 14:14 -0600
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2021-11-04 03:21 +0000
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2021-11-04 03:28 +0000
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-04 11:03 +0000
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2021-11-04 07:07 -0500
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-04 15:54 +0000
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2021-11-04 13:41 -0500
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 John-Paul Stewart <jpstewart@personalprojects.net> - 2021-11-04 14:54 -0400
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2021-11-04 20:00 +0100
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2021-11-04 20:04 +0100
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 John-Paul Stewart <jpstewart@personalprojects.net> - 2021-11-04 16:36 -0400
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-04 19:25 +0000
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-04 19:33 +0000
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-11-05 14:09 +0200
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-05 14:15 +0000
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2021-11-05 13:01 -0500
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2021-11-05 13:01 -0500
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2021-11-04 19:52 +0100
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2021-11-04 18:24 -0500
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2021-11-05 08:02 +0100
Re: Linux "native" Virtualization: ARM64 vs x86_64 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-05 09:09 +0000
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-05 14:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sm0fssax0q4.fsf@lakka.kapsi.fi> |
| In reply to | #33562 |
Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> writes: > I'm actually hoping a x86_64 emulator already exists for ARM. I guess *worst > case* I could build a x86_64 cross-compiler hosted on ARM. Why is that the worst case? I've done cross compilation to MIPS and ARM a couple of times but not recently. Cross compilation was fine, mostly the problems I had were some software packages using build systems like the common Autotools in a way that was not compatible with cross compilation and required some fiddling. Or even a lot of fiddling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-05 14:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sm3e9g$v2e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33585 |
On 05/11/2021 12:09, Anssi Saari wrote: > Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> writes: > >> I'm actually hoping a x86_64 emulator already exists for ARM. I guess *worst >> case* I could build a x86_64 cross-compiler hosted on ARM. > > Why is that the worst case? I've done cross compilation to MIPS and ARM > a couple of times but not recently. Cross compilation was fine, mostly > the problems I had were some software packages using build systems like > the common Autotools in a way that was not compatible with cross > compilation and required some fiddling. Or even a lot of fiddling. > I cant understand why, if you want an x86 target, you don't just grab a second-hand WINPC and bang Linux on it, and cross mount a source directory and compile on it using the command line - no need even for screen and keyboard My Pi code was all prototyped on a fast compiling x86 machine prior to mounting the source directory on the pi and then typing "make clean; make;" Cross compiling works, but is a lot easier to have the right CPU and libraries handy for a target to compile and test upon. -- When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it. Frédéric Bastiat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-05 13:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <h7Odnew0BNfw7Bj8nZ2dnUU7-XHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #33588 |
At Fri, 5 Nov 2021 14:15:12 +0000 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> On 05/11/2021 12:09, Anssi Saari wrote:
> > Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> writes:
> >
> >> I'm actually hoping a x86_64 emulator already exists for ARM. I guess *worst
> >> case* I could build a x86_64 cross-compiler hosted on ARM.
> >
> > Why is that the worst case? I've done cross compilation to MIPS and ARM
> > a couple of times but not recently. Cross compilation was fine, mostly
> > the problems I had were some software packages using build systems like
> > the common Autotools in a way that was not compatible with cross
> > compilation and required some fiddling. Or even a lot of fiddling.
> >
> I cant understand why, if you want an x86 target, you don't just grab a
> second-hand WINPC and bang Linux on it, and cross mount a source
> directory and compile on it using the command line - no need even for
> screen and keyboard
It is another piece of hardware to maintain... (I do everything from the
command line and all of my build boxen are headless.) I am also getting fed
up with Intel and AMD processors and corresponding motherboard chipsets and I
really at the end of the line with laptops.
>
> My Pi code was all prototyped on a fast compiling x86 machine prior to
> mounting the source directory on the pi and then typing "make clean; make;"
> Cross compiling works, but is a lot easier to have the right CPU and
> libraries handy for a target to compile and test upon.
>
--
Robert Heller -- Cell: 413-658-7953 GV: 978-633-5364
Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-05 13:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <O76dnZcQjNHw7Bj8nZ2dnUU7-dHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #33585 |
At Fri, 05 Nov 2021 14:09:55 +0200 Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> wrote:
>
> Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> writes:
>
> > I'm actually hoping a x86_64 emulator already exists for ARM. I guess *worst
> > case* I could build a x86_64 cross-compiler hosted on ARM.
>
> Why is that the worst case? I've done cross compilation to MIPS and ARM
> a couple of times but not recently. Cross compilation was fine, mostly
> the problems I had were some software packages using build systems like
> the common Autotools in a way that was not compatible with cross
> compilation and required some fiddling. Or even a lot of fiddling.
Cross compiling to a target *OS*, as opposed to a micro-controller (which has
no bare-metal O/S), can be "interesting", since the build environment is not
quite the same as the target. And compiling gcc/g++ cross-compiler can take a
long time (well building an embeded ARMv7 target on an ARMv7 linux host took
like 72 hours and pushed close to the 1G RAM on a Pi3). And yes, the
Autotools are fiddly when cross building (at least for a MS-Windows target).
My build infrastructure is not really cleanly set up from cross-building to a
Linux target on a Linux host -- I suspect some fiddling with the
autoconf/aclocal/automake stuff would be needed, esp. since the
cross-compiling test assumes MS-Windows target on a Linux host.
>
>
--
Robert Heller -- Cell: 413-658-7953 GV: 978-633-5364
Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-04 19:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <61842c06$0$6461$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #33560 |
Le 04/11/2021 à 16:54, The Natural Philosopher a écrit : > On 04/11/2021 12:07, Robert Heller wrote: > >> I am not really interested performance -- My only interest in emulating x86 on >> aarch64 (64-bit ARM) is as a "build box" -- if it takes hours to compile, so >> what... Do you really need an x86 platform to compile for x86 target ? What about cross-compilers ? > Ahh..ok. Have fun writing an ARM RISC=>x86 CISC interpreter... Doesn't QEMU already do this ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-04 18:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <W5ednZV0muc29hn8nZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #33563 |
At Thu, 4 Nov 2021 19:52:54 +0100 Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote:
>
> Le 04/11/2021 à 16:54, The Natural Philosopher a écrit :
> > On 04/11/2021 12:07, Robert Heller wrote:
> >
> >> I am not really interested performance -- My only interest in emulating x86 on
> >> aarch64 (64-bit ARM) is as a "build box" -- if it takes hours to compile, so
> >> what...
>
> Do you really need an x86 platform to compile for x86 target ? What
> about cross-compilers ?
I might want to do basic tests to be sure the binaries actually run under x86
Linuxes
>
> > Ahh..ok. Have fun writing an ARM RISC=>x86 CISC interpreter...
>
> Doesn't QEMU already do this ?
>
>
>
--
Robert Heller -- Cell: 413-658-7953 GV: 978-633-5364
Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-05 08:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <6184d6f8$0$6446$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #33573 |
Le 05/11/2021 à 00:24, Robert Heller a écrit : > At Thu, 4 Nov 2021 19:52:54 +0100 Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote: > >>> On 04/11/2021 12:07, Robert Heller wrote: >>> >>>> I am not really interested performance -- My only interest in emulating x86 on >>>> aarch64 (64-bit ARM) is as a "build box" -- if it takes hours to compile, so >>>> what... >> >> Do you really need an x86 platform to compile for x86 target ? What >> about cross-compilers ? > > I might want to do basic tests to be sure the binaries actually run under x86 > Linuxes It seems that QEMU can transparently run foreign binaries (qemu-user). So you could build them efficiently with a cross-compiler and test them with QEMU.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-05 09:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sm2sc2$mq0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33578 |
On 05/11/2021 07:02, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Le 05/11/2021 à 00:24, Robert Heller a écrit : >> At Thu, 4 Nov 2021 19:52:54 +0100 Pascal Hambourg >> <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote: >> >>>> On 04/11/2021 12:07, Robert Heller wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am not really interested performance -- My only interest in >>>>> emulating x86 on >>>>> aarch64 (64-bit ARM) is as a "build box" -- if it takes hours to >>>>> compile, so >>>>> what... >>> >>> Do you really need an x86 platform to compile for x86 target ? What >>> about cross-compilers ? >> >> I might want to do basic tests to be sure the binaries actually run >> under x86 >> Linuxes > > It seems that QEMU can transparently run foreign binaries (qemu-user). > So you could build them efficiently with a cross-compiler and test them > with QEMU. When I tried to boot DOS on QEMU on a power PC I gave up after an hour... -- "A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding". Marshall McLuhan
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web