The Holy Grail (of computing?)

[Rob Landley]

On Sunday 09 September 2007 5:10:30 am Paul Mundt wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 06:23:43AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Wednesday 05 September 2007 3:40:39 am Carl SHAW wrote:
> > > > I don't use buildroot at all.  Lots of other projects (like Gentoo
> > > > Embedded or my own Firmware LInux) use uClibc but not buildroot.
> > >
> > > I agree with that - I work in the commercial embedded Linux market and
> > > most people I'm aware of in it actually use an embedded distribution
> > > containing uClibc that isn't based on buildroot.  We produce our own
> > > embedded distribution (ST Linux) mainly for the SH4.  Our customers
> > > seem to like "packaged" software rather than one great big tarball (or
> > > most of them anyway).
> >
> > If I could get an emulator that ran sh4 code, I'd happily add sh4 as a
> > supported target of FWL.  Unfortunately, qemu doesn't do it yet...
>
> qemu works fine for static binaries on SH-4, there's still some troubles
> with ldso under qemu, though. busybox works quite fine at the moment.
> Patches are of course welcome for any remaining problems that are
> encountered.

I installed an updated version of the -git mirror of the cvs tree three or 
four days ago, and "qemu-" [tab] [tab] doesn't show a qemu-sh[anything].  It 
shows arm, m68k, mips, mips64, mips64el, ppc, ppc64, ppcemb, sparc, and 
x86_64.  (And of course the base qemu is x86 and that should really be a 
symlink to qemu-x86 or something, but oh well.)

How do I enable the sh version in the build?

Rob
-- 
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
  - Ken Thompson.