linaro-dev July 2010

linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org

38 participants
39 discussions

[Linaro-dev] Kernel Consolidation Work Group Call - 2010-07-07

by Jamie Bennett

Hi, A summary from this weeks kernel consolidation working group meeting is now available. It can be viewed online at the following link and is reproduced below. https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/KernelConsolidation/Meetings/2010-07-… A list of all meetings can be found at: https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/KernelConsolidation/Meetings == Wed 7th July 2010 == === Attendees === Jamie Bennett Matt Wadde Jeremy Kerr Nicolas Pitre Amit Kucheria Loïc Minier David Rusling John Rigby Arnd Bergmann === Agenda === * Action items from last meeting. * Matt to check that the arm_next.git tree has everything we need and works * Nicolas to review latest round of patches from Jeremy, then can include in arm_next and push to Russell * Matt checkout status of device tree support for his board * Jeremy to chat with Nicolas about documenting boot interface * Loic create Launchpad project and processes around kernel consolidation * npitre to find a way to expose the list of trees merged in arm_next.git via a wiki page * npitre tested his stack-overflow module on x86 and the issue is present as well and needs to find out whether it's a bug in the compiler or in his code * lool to invite jcrigby explicitly * Blueprint status. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/arm-m-using-device-tree-on-arm https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/arm-m-kernel-version-alignment https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/linaro-pm-wg/+spec/arm-m-kernel-power… https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/arm-m-missing-security-featur… https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/arm-m-debugging-with-oprofile https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/arm-m-alsa-soc-fdt-bindings https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/kernel-maverick-arm-sing… https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/arm-m-versatile-express-a9-en… === Action Items === * Matt to code review the arm_next.git tree and check that all patches are present. * jk to report on progress of talking to Grant WRT upstreaming his patches. * mwaddel to talk to ARM about device-tree work. * Jeremy to chat with Nicolas about documenting boot interface. * npitre to find a way to expose the list of trees merged in arm_next.git via a wiki page. * jcrigby to talk to slangasek about the list of kernel flavours to produce. * amitk to report back the status on linux-omap's patches. * jcrigby to determine if versatile is still needed. * lool to check that -fPIE support is currently enabled in the Linaro toolchain. * npitre and arnd to review ericm's single zImage patches. * ericm to send single zImage patches to russelking after they have been reviewed. * jcrigby and lool to arrange a uboot specific call for interested team members. === Minutes === ==== Action item review ==== * mwaddel is still working on checking arm_next.git tree. He hasn't managed to boot it yet due to issues. A code review is needed. * [ACTION] Matt to code review the arm_next.git tree and check that all patches are present. * npitre has been working with jk to review his latest round of patches. The process is ongoing and some clean-up is needed. The main problem is that jk's patches depend on some patches from Grant Likely and Grants aren't upstream yet. * jk explained that Grant is working on upstreaming his patches and he foresees no problems. * [ACTION] jk to report on progress of talking to Grant WRT upstreaming his patches. * mwaddel committed to talking to ARM to discuss device-tree work. * [ACTION] mwaddel to talk to ARM about device-tree work. * 3 patches still remain on the boot interface and jk is still working on them. npitre needs to review. * [ACTION] Jeremy to chat with Nicolas about documenting boot interface. * lool asked the working group to email him activity reports weekly to facilitate the production of a weekly report. * npitre didn't manage to complete an action item on the list of trees merged in arm_next.git. This was carried over. * [ACTION] npitre to find a way to expose the list of trees merged in arm_next.git via a wiki page. * [ACTION] npitre to describe the problem he is having with the stack-overflow module and pass this onto a tool chain person for investigation. * jcrigby will take up the packaging of the kernel tree. * [ACTION] jcrigby to talk to slangasek about the list of kernel flavours to produce. ==== Blueprint Status ==== * jk explained that the last week has been spent rebasing his current patches and working with npitre to review them. * He also mentioned that no new hardware had been enabled and will not be until the current patchset is approved. * OMAP3 and OMAP4 is being worked by Linaro and its partners, patches will be fed into the Linaro kernel. * Some partners want complete tree branches merging into the Linaro kernel to enable their new hardware to boot 'out-of-the-box' with Linaro. * davidrusling asked about the status of OMAP WRT to upstream. amitk explained that about 700 patches are not upstream for OMAP4 but OMAP3 is in a much better position. TI have recently added patches for the Panda board to the linux-omap tree. It is understood that around half of the 700 patches will need some work to upstream. npitre said that he is willing to take large chunks of code as long as it merges nicely. * [ACTION] amitk to report back the status on linux-omap's patches. * The issue of keeping a stable kernel tree was discussed. One possible solution was to have two tree's, one that will constantly rebase with upstream and continue to fold new code in with a second tree being more 'tried and tested' which could be used as a basis for release. The details still need working out. * jcrigby is currently packaging Linux versatile but the patches to enable QEMU support for versatile aren't available in Linaro ATM. lool asked if we need to keep versatile support, jk explained that keeping it would be a good idea as its currently used. A final decision needs to be made after investigations. * [ACTION] jcrigby to determine if versatile is still needed. * Arnd Bergmann joined the work group this week, he introduced himself and explained that he would be working on QEMU initially. * Kernel power management discussion will be removed from this work group as it has its own now. * npitre explained that one of his work items on the missing security features was blocking on toolchain support. lool asked npitre to file a bug. * [ACTION] lool to check that -fpie support is currently enabled in the Linaro kernel. * npitre is monitoring ericm's patches for a single zImage kernel. He believes that some patches are simple enough to get upstream. * [ACTION] npitre and arnd to review ericm's single zImage patches. * [ACTION] ericm to send single zImage patches to russelking after they have been reviewed. * mwaddel explained that there is no support for mmc on the versatile express boards. This needed adding. * Future tracking of uboot work will be discussed on the call from the future. * [ACTION] jcrigby and lool to arrange a uboot specific call for interested team members. Regards, Jamie. -- Linaro Release Manager

13 years, 10 months

[Linaro-dev] Toolchain WG - 2010-07-07 Standup notes

by Loïc Minier

Hi We're started having standup calls in the Toolchain WG as an experiment. The goal is to identify blockers and resolve issues/questions as soon as they appear, checking the health of the work queues of people in the group etc. They are scheduled on Wednesdays and Fridays complementing the weekly WG calls on Mondays. These are the notes from today's first call, also at: https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2010-07-07 == Attendees == * Yao Qi * Andrew Stubbs * Michael Hope * Loic Minier == Minutes === === Andrew === * has work to do :-) * will attack review of the armel regressions now that Loic's beagle is up again * pbrook assigned himself to perl + mysql bugs and has a preliminary patch for one of them === Michael === * needs more work since the getfem++ failure is unreproducible * should do the first backport(s) from https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/UbuntuRegressions * some people on holiday, but should try to get upstream patches (best effort) reviewed before backporting them from the upstream mailing-list * assigned to LP #602171 now We reviewed some of the issues at the top of https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/UbuntuRegressions and updated status, some of the issues need to be clarified with Matthias Klose (doko). === Yao === * moving patches from his local CodeSourcery tree with Ubuntu patches into bzr * will send a merge request for the Ubuntu patches today * faces issues with ada patches; we probably failed to identify prerequisite patches; need to do test build === Loic === * slacking, as usual ;-) * fixed beagleboard * offers himself for help on the packaging and bzr issues which might popup; will help Michael with bzr + process documentation and Yao with package builds Thanks, -- Loïc Minier

13 years, 10 months

[Linaro-dev] test-rebuild of maverick (main) using the linaro compiler

by Matthias Klose

A test rebuild of maverick (main) on amd64 and i386 did finish last weekend [1]. - There are a few failures which I could not reproduce on plain maverick (using the maverick GCC). Bug reports are filed for the linaro-gcc project, tagged with `armel toolchain'. - Bug reports for packages which fail to build in maverick [2] are filed for ubuntu with priority high, milestoned to alpha-3. - Some packages are unchecked (uninstallable build dependencies, when the snapshot was taken) [3]. Some issues with our build infrastructure to do test rebuilds on armel will be fixed this week, and the armel test rebuild should start this week. Matthias [1] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archive/test-rebuild-20100628 [2] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archive/test-rebuild-20100628/+builds?build_t… [3] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archive/test-rebuild-20100628/+builds?build_t…

13 years, 10 months

[Linaro-dev] Toolchain WG - 2010-07-05 Meeting notes and activity report for last week

by Loïc Minier

Hi there I should have sent out such weekly notes much earlier, but it's never too late to set it right! So please find below the minutes from today's Toolchain Working Group meeting and the activity reports from previous week. You can find the full meeting notes at https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2010-07-05 == Agenda == * New starter: Michael Hope * Action items from last meeting * Blueprints status * cross-compilers blueprint (hrw) * maverick armel toolchain * testsuite regressions * regression FTBFSes * merging Ubuntu patches (low) * Proposed release date, next Monday * Assigning important package build failures (FTBFSes) in Ubuntu with Linaro GCC to Linaro folks * MySQL LP #600936 * Perl LP #600951 * Upcoming new mailing-list * Conflict with GCC Summit == Action Items from this Meeting == * Loic and Andrew to extend wiki page to track progress of the merging of Ubuntu patches, assignees etc. * Loic to setup and run a call on merge workflow with bzr * Matthias to sort autotools issues with new cell-4.4 Linaro patch or to ask Ulrich for help :-) * Marcin to fix -gcc symlink (LP #600927) and update-alternatives installability issue in his public cross-compiler packages == Action Items from Previous Meeting == * Loic to create wiki page tracking merging of Ubuntu patches starting from Andrew's review: DONE (by Andrew) * Ulrich to merge the cell-4.4 patch with the Linaro branch: DONE * Julian and Andrew to review remaining testsuite failures * Loic to check whether we can resolve conflicts between next GCC Summit and Linaro Developers Summit * Paul Brook to assign himself to the FTBFS bug he is working on * Ulrich to pick up the other FTBFS bug * Loic to setup gcc-linaro milestone for July release == Minutes == * New starter from Canonical: Michael Hope; round of introductions * Ubuntu patches being reviewed and tested within CodeSourcery * Can be merged in Linaro branches right now * Loic and Andrew to extend wiki page to track progress of the merging * Loic, Yao and Andrew to have a bzr call on using the bzr review/merge process; Loic to organize; same time tomorrow (Tuesday) * Loic and Andrew to discuss binutils patches this week with doko * Ulrich sent a new cell-4.4 patch on top of the Linaro branch; doesn't work for doko due to some autotools issues; Ulrich believes this is minor stuff which Matthias will fix * Andrew had no time to review the remaining testsuite failures; Julian was on leave next week * Andrew to review the results when Loic tells him his beagle is up again * Blueprint status * cross-compilers * hrw wants to check that everything is merged in the gcc-4.5 packaging SVN * doko working on 4.5.1 merge * hrw will fix the regression raised on debian-embedded@ * plans to rewrite his internal stage patches * -gcc symlink LP #600927 is about to be fixed, needs merging in packaging SVN * update-alternatives issue * linaro-m / Ubuntu maverick toolchain blueprint * see above for testsuite failures and merging of Ubuntu patches * regression FTBFSes * Paul Brook looking into at least one of the two failure to build issues * Andrew to ask pbrook to assign himself to the bug * Ulrich to poke the other bug once we know which one that is * Initial release * Proposed release date: next Monday; next Tuesday is actually best to discussthis next Monday; Andrew raises that the perl+mysql bugs might be hard, we dont know * Release version: 4.x + 2010.07 (month of the release); monthly releases * Loic to setup a milestone to track this * New mailing-list: new linaro-toolchain public mailing-list on its way, stay tuned * Conflict with GCC Summit; Loic checked with Mark Mitchell and Kiko what we could do about the conflict, not an option to move LDS / UDS, GCC Summit date was probably just agreed upon (implies reservations were made :-/) so probably not an option to move it either; Mark seemed to think it wasn't an issue to send some folks to each summit Activity reports from last week: = Ulrich Weigand = == GCC == * Resolved merge conflicts between cell-branch.diff and gcc444-linaro.diff == Education == * Started getting familiar with Debian package build process * Started getting familiar with Launchpad infrastructure * Started reading ARMv7 Architecture Reference Manual == Infrastructure == * Set up ARM root filesystem for use under QEMU * Investigated options for ARM development hardware == Admin == * Completed NewStarters tasks * Started participating in toolchain WG calls * Made travel arrangments for Prague meeting = Yao Qi = == Linaro GCC == * Import Ubuntu GCC patches [1] to Linaro GCC 4.4. Patches on C/C++/fortran are applied, natively built and tested. Check them in internal git repo. * Fixing bootstrapping error when ada patches in [1] are applied. More ada patches in [1] might be applied. == Misc == * Set up account on linaro.org, and have an interview meeting with Loïc and Andrew. = Andrew Stubbs = == CS work plan == * Attended many meetings and wrote many emails, documents, and blueprints etc. towards completing the CodeSourcery Work Plan. * This has now been agreed, so now we can get on with real work. :) = Loic Minier = * Finished gcc-4.4 + Linaro build on local beagleboard; tried to * upgrade to maverick kernels and broke boot in the process; LP #591941 * Wrote up activity reporting guidelines https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Reports * Compiled Bzr tips page https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/BzrTips * Interviews with candidates and introductory calls with new starters * Toolchain WG planning, CodeSourcery work plan review Cheers -- Loïc Minier

13 years, 10 months

Re: [Linaro-dev] Maverick cross toolchain

by Marcin Juszkiewicz

Dnia czwartek, 1 lipca 2010 o 18:44:26 Wookey napisał(a): > +++ Marcin Juszkiewicz [2010-06-28 16:06 +0200]: > > Dnia piątek, 18 czerwca 2010 o 17:15:59 Marcin Juszkiewicz napisał(a): > > > > Latest version of cross toolchains are available in prebuilt form on: > Marcin. I've been trying to get round to reading stuff and find out > what was what but have failed so far. It's proably quicker to just ask > you: > Can you tell me what you have done to the toolchain build process. > I am familiar with the existing cross-build mechanisms as used in the > emdebian toolchains and the buildcross tool we use to build them. But > it looks to me like you have moved stuff around and changed targets > and things and I would like the high level view on what is changed and > why. One of things which I did was merging code used for native builds/packaging with cross one. In result we got less packaging code to worry and cross packages are improved now: - libraries have -dbg packages - libmudflap is cross built > Also what decisions have been made about using existing or sysroot or > multiarch paths or some combination of those in default search paths. I did not changed any of those. > Do we still have work to do to make the cross-toolchains buildable > in-archive by the buildds? Yes, this has to be done. I have ugly patch which adds stage1 to eglibc (attached - build will fail on packaging step), managed also to build stage1/stage2 in gcc-4.5 but in style which needs to be rewritten totally (attached - use by "fakeroot debian/rules stage1_install"). > Or is that done? > If it is done have you used the scheme worked out by Doko and Hector at last > years Debconf, or some new scheme? I asked Matthias (doko) about it and he told that talk was mainly about merging cross code with native one and that part is already done (but I am finding small improvements from time to time). Second part was biarch and here nothing got changed. > Has any progress been made on making it easier to set the default cpu > build options without building a whole new toolchain? Not that I know. > Some of these things affect other tools (like dpkg-cross and > multiarch transition - second stage (cross building)), and I'd just > like to see which choices have been made and why so I can see if there > are any problems coming down the track. Most of my already done work does not change anything related to a way how of building cross toolchain. Binutils have it easier now as "binary-cross" target got merged into "binary" one but note about it is printed if someone tries old way. > There are some tricky transitions which it would be nice not to make > too much of a mess of, as it is likely to be a bit painful whatever we > do, especially if there is skew between Debian and ubuntu. All my changes lands in Debian's svn area which keeps gcc packaging. > Cheers for any clues you can give me to get me up to speed. Regards, -- JID: hrw(a)jabber.org Website: http://marcin.juszkiewicz.com.pl/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinjuszkiewicz

13 years, 10 months

[Linaro-dev] Call for testing: lp:~zkrynicki/launch-control/hw-profile

by Zygmunt Bazyli Krynicki

Hello everyone! I'd like to ask for early testing of a new launch-control branch adding support for generating system profile information on ARM systems. I need you to find all the ARM hardware you have access to and run a bit of python code and send me the result. See below for details. == Prerequisites == 1) Debian-based system 2) Installed packages: * python-2.6 (2.5 support is coming) * python-apt * python-debian * lsb-release * usbutils == Instructions == The branch is at: lp:~zkrynicki/launch-control/hw-profile Instructions: $ bzr get lp:~zkrynicki/launch-control/hw-profile \ launch-control.hw-profile $ cd launch-control.hw-profile $ ./get-system-profile -i -o system-profile-with-a-sensible-name.json If something goes wrong please attach the output of the following commands: * lsb_release -a * cat /proc/cpuinfo * cat /proc/meminfo * lsusb * uname -m Report bugs at: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/launch-control/+filebug == About launch-control == Launch control is project that aims to implement the Validation Dashboard spec. See: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/arm-m-validation-dashboard == System Detection Features == Hardware: * CPU (for x86, x86_64 and arm, PPC is *not* supported yet) * Board detection * Memory * USB Software: * distribution * installed debian packages (via apt) Best regards Zygmunt -- Zygmunt Bazyli Krynicki <zygmunt.krynicki(a)canonical.com>

13 years, 10 months

[Linaro-dev] Linaro 10.11 alpha 2 released

by Alexander Sack

Hello World, The Linaro Platform Team is proud to announce the release of its first milestone release for the current development branch dubbed Linaro-M. This release features an early preview of Linaro core platform on it's way to the Linaro 10.11 release in November 2010 and consists of: * a small Linaro headless image (linaro core) * with basic OMAP3 beagle board (c3/c4) enablement included More Information on this development release as well as download and installation instructions can be found at the URL below: * https://wiki.linaro.org/Releases/1011/Alpha2 More information on Linaro in general and the 10.11 plans can be found at the URLs below: * Homepage: http://www.linaro.org * Wiki: https://wiki.linaro.org * 10.11: https://wiki.linaro.org/Releases/1011 Also subscribe to the important Linaro mailing lists and join our IRC channels to stay on top of Linaro developments and, of course, to start working with us: * Linaro Announce: http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-announce * Linaro Development: http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev * IRC: #linaro on irc.freenode.net See you there and enjoy this release, - Alexander -- Linaro Platform Team

13 years, 10 months

[Linaro-dev] Python2.5 compatibilty requirement for the Infrastructure Team

by Zygmunt Bazyli Krynicki

Hello everyone. Our current developer guidelines for python development state that we should support both python2.5 and python2.6. I'd like to ask if python2.5 can be dropped from the list. I just took the steps required to test python2.5 (and removed 2.6-only features in the process). I had to use Hardy VM to do so because python 2.5 is no longer available in the Lucid archive. Doing additional testing in a VM is cumbersome and error-prone as we can accidentally slip in a 2.6-only code or trigger 2.5 bug we didn't know about and it might go untested. Can we rationalise the requirements for supporting python2.5 and if so, devise a sensible testing plan for our python development? BTW: It's worth publishing our python development practices on the Linaro wiki. Best regards Zygmunt

13 years, 10 months

[Linaro-dev] Integrating Debian/Ubuntu GCC Patch Set in Ubuntu

by Andrew Stubbs

Hi All, Matthias and I have been throught the Ubuntu GCC 4.4 patch set and decided what to do with each of them in Linaro GCC 4.4 and 4.5. Some patches will be integrated into Linaro, and some will remain Debian/Ubuntu local. The patches can be found here: http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/gcccvs/branches/sid/gcc-4.4/debian/patches/?p… Here are the patches in alphabetical order, and whether to apply to linaro gcc (yes/no) or already in 4.5 (upstream): PATCH Linaro 4.4 4.5 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ada-acats.diff yes yes ada-arm-eabi.diff yes upstream ada-bug564232.diff no no ada-default-project-path.diff no no ada-driver-check.diff no no ada-gcc-name.diff [1] no no ada-gnatvsn.diff [7] maybe maybe ada-libgnatprj.diff no no ada-libgnatvsn.diff no no ada-library-project-files-soname.diff no no ada-link-lib.diff no no ada-mips.diff no no ada-nobiarch-check.diff no no ada-polyorb-dsa.diff maybe upstream ada-sjlj.diff no no ada-symbolic-tracebacks.diff [2] maybe maybe alpha-ieee.diff no no alpha-ieee-doc.diff no no alpha-no-ev4-directive.diff no no arm-boehm-gc-locks.diff yes upstream armel-hilo-union-class.diff [8] maybe maybe arm-gcc-gcse-cs.diff yes upstream arm-unbreak-eabi-armv4t.diff no no boehm-gc-getnprocs.diff [1] maybe maybe boehm-gc-nocheck.diff no no cell-branch.diff [9] no upstream cell-branch-doc.diff [9] no upstream config-ml.diff no no cross-fixes.diff no no cross-include.diff no no deb-protoize.diff no no fix-warnings.diff no no gcc-arm-implicit-it.diff [5] maybe maybe gcc-arm-thumb2-sched.diff [10] yes upstream gcc-atom.diff in CS upstream gcc-atom-doc.diff in CS upstream gcc-build-id.diff yes upstream gcc-cloog-dl-cs.diff no no gcc-default-format-security.diff [1] no no gcc-default-fortify-source.diff [1] no no gcc-default-relro.diff [1] no no gcc-default-ssp.diff [1] no no gcc-d-lang.diff no no gcc-driver-extra-langs.diff no no gcc-hash-style-both.diff [1] no no gcc-hash-style-gnu.diff [1] no no gcc-ice-apport.diff no no gcc-ice-hack.diff [3] no no gcc-ix86-asm-generic32.diff no no gcc-multiarch-cs.diff no no gcc-multiarch-i686-cs.diff no no gcc-multilib64dir.diff no no gcc-pascal-lang.diff no no gcc-stack_chk_fail-check.diff yes upstream gcc-textdomain.diff [1] no no gcc-unwind-debug-hook.diff yes upstream gcj-use-atomic-builtins.diff yes upstream gcj-use-atomic-builtins-doc.diff yes upstream gold-and-ld.diff no no gold-and-ld-doc.diff no no hurd-changes.diff no no hurd-pthread.diff no no ignore-comp-fail.diff no no kbsd-gnu-ada.diff no no kbsd-gnu.diff no no libgomp-omp_h-multilib.diff [3] no no libjava-armel-unwind.diff no no libjava-atomic-builtins-eabi.diff yes upstream libjava-disable-plugin.diff no upstream libjava-disable-static.diff no upstream libjava-fixed-symlinks.diff no upstream libjava-jnipath.diff no no libjava-josm-fixes.diff yes upstream libjava-nobiarch-check.diff no no libjava-rpath.diff no no libjava-sjlj.diff no no libjava-stacktrace.diff [1,2] no no libjava-subdir.diff no no libstdc++-arm-no-check.diff no no libstdc++-arm-wno-abi.diff no no libstdc++-doclink.diff no no libstdc++-ldbl-compat.diff [4] yes yes libstdc++-man-3cxx.diff no no libstdc++-pic.diff no no libstdc++-test-installed.diff [5] maybe maybe libsupc++-vmi_class_type_info.diff yes upstream link-libs.diff no no m68k-allow-gnu99.diff no no mips-fix-loongson2f-nop-cs.diff no no mips-triarch.diff no no mudflap-nocheck.diff no no note-gnu-stack.diff [3] no no powerpc-biarch.diff no no pr25509.diff no upstream pr25509-doc.diff no upstream pr38333.diff no upstream pr39429.diff yes upstream pr39491.diff no no pr40133.diff yes upstream pr40134.diff [2,6] yes yes pr40521-revert-workaround.diff yes upstream pr41848.diff [4] yes yes pr42321.diff yes upstream pr42748.diff yes upstream pr43323.diff yes upstream pr44261.diff no no rename-info-files.diff no no rev146451.diff yes upstream s390-biarch.diff no no sh4_atomic_update.diff no no sh4-mode-switching.diff no no sh4-multilib.diff no no sh4-scheduling.diff no no sparc-force-cpu.diff no no testsuite-hardening-format.diff no no testsuite-hardening-fortify.diff no no testsuite-hardening-printf-types.diff no no [1] not upstreamable, but maybe another patch would be. [2] Matthias to investigate. [3] Fedora origin. [4] Already submitted upstream, not in 4.5. [5] Requires review. [6] ARM part only. [7] issue closed upstream, no patch. [8] Julian to investigate. [9] Not interesting to Linaro, but Canonical would like CS to unbreak it for Ubuntu. [10] Part of this patch is already in 4.4 Andrew Stubbs

13 years, 10 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-dev July 2010