add ido support for FreeBSD #84
Open
+26
−0
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Needs rebase. |
…c_impl.c for bsd conventions and libc calls
mrpotatogun
force-pushed
the
freebsdido
branch
from
93984fa to
9921382
Compare
and adding -lexecinfo to linker flags
|
rebased, and had to add support in the ido_recomp Makefile. still producing matching roms. |
|
Awesome. I will go ahead and talk with the team. |
mountainflaw
approved these changes
Sep 6, 2023
fjtrujy
pushed a commit
to fjtrujy/sm64
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 7, 2024
Update README.md
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
add via ifdef FreeBSD pre-processor directives in libc_impl.c
This code may work in OpenBSD and NetBSD with suitable arch definition flags added to the pre-processor checks, but I have no such systems now to test with. I would imagine they have the same libc and procfs implementation, or similar enough.
Modifies:
find_bin_dir() by wrapping FreeBSD procfs syntax to current process using existing linux code as template
wrapper_tempnam dir seems to be coming in blank, this creates a temp file at root fs. not sure if this is truly coming in at root or if glibc checking on appropriates of tempfile is saving linux, while bsd libc does no checking for sanity. forced dir to "/tmp/" and resolved issue. not satisfying result, but working, and /tmp seems to be where these should go anyway.
wrapper___assert() changed redirection to __assert() using bsd call ordering and forcing unused extra parameter in bsd libc to "undefinedfunc". FreeBSD allows defining a function in the __assert() call
results:
$ gsha1sum build/us/sm64.us.z64 baserom.us.z64
9bef1128717f958171a4afac3ed78ee2bb4e86ce build/us/sm64.us.z64
9bef1128717f958171a4afac3ed78ee2bb4e86ce baserom.us.z64
Matching Rom OK reported from build as well
this requires a custom built binutils for mips64-elf, I can tweak the readme.md or whereever the guides are if my memory is off if you want. I am also working on a toolchain Makefile to do the work more easily, including making a gcc newlib mips64-elf compiler that also produces runnable roms, obviously just not matching. Let me know in a comment on this if you want me to go that route. For the guide I can explain the configure options to just make binutils, or ultimatley include my tool, or I can put my tools into my own repo and reference given the aim on this project is to only produce matching roms, which I can respect. binutils is trivial, to explain in a guide along with some creative path tweaks and some symlinks to address some quality of life things to avoid editing the project Makefile to build things in bsd. GCC is a beast to figure out on your own, but generally the arch linux build scripts were a great guide. Let me know, now time to make the hacks of my dreams...