On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 01:51:42PM +0800, 邓尧 wrote:
> > If busybox is used, the test framework itself would depend  on musl-libc,
> > which means test test framework would depend on the test subject. In
> > theory, it's a bad bad idea.
> >
> > 0.02$
>
> The busybox used need not even be linked with musl; it could be a
> uclibc-linked binary from aboriginal, for example. The point was not
> to use busybox as any major part of the test framework, just to have a
> shell to run the script that would run all the tests from the
> libc-test package inside qemu.
>

Extracting test result isn't easy, and creating these initramfs and kernel
images are time consuming. qemu-user may be a better choice, I'm not sure
about the stability of qemu-user though. The following shows qemu-user
could easily run a simple userspace program of a different architecture:

hoolala@ubuntu:/tmp$ cat hello.c
#include <stdio.h>

int main() {
    printf("hello\n");
    return 1;
}
hoolala@ubuntu:/tmp$ arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc hello.c -static
hoolala@ubuntu:/tmp$ qemu-arm ./a.out
hello
hoolala@ubuntu:/tmp$ echo $?
1