Hi
At Linaro we are working on cross toolchain for ARM/EABI target (known as 'armel' in Debian and Ubuntu based systems). We base on work made by Debian and Ubuntu toolchain maintainers.
Latest version of cross toolchains are available in prebuilt form on:
http://people.canonical.com/~hrw/ubuntu-maverick-armel-cross-compilers/
I provide there gcc-4.4, gcc-4.5, binutils and eglibc packages. Use them, report bugs to Ubuntu launchpad.
Regards,
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 04:32:48PM +0200, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
Hi
At Linaro we are working on cross toolchain for ARM/EABI target (known as 'armel' in Debian and Ubuntu based systems). We base on work made by Debian and Ubuntu toolchain maintainers.
Latest version of cross toolchains are available in prebuilt form on:
http://people.canonical.com/~hrw/ubuntu-maverick-armel-cross-compilers/
I provide there gcc-4.4, gcc-4.5, binutils and eglibc packages. Use them, report bugs to Ubuntu launchpad.
Great news, Marcin!
Maybe we should use a tag or subscribe some team to easily extract a bug list filed for our X-toolchain packages?
- Alexander
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz < marcin.juszkiewicz@linaro.org> wrote:
Hi
At Linaro we are working on cross toolchain for ARM/EABI target (known as 'armel' in Debian and Ubuntu based systems). We base on work made by Debian and Ubuntu toolchain maintainers.
Latest version of cross toolchains are available in prebuilt form on:
http://people.canonical.com/~hrw/ubuntu-maverick-armel-cross-compilers/http://people.canonical.com/%7Ehrw/ubuntu-maverick-armel-cross-compilers/
I provide there gcc-4.4, gcc-4.5, binutils and eglibc packages. Use them, report bugs to Ubuntu launchpad.
Regards,
Cool! Any chance of this showing up in a PPA for easier updates?
Dnia wtorek, 15 czerwca 2010 o 17:05:24 Amit Kucheria napisał(a):
Cool! Any chance of this showing up in a PPA for easier updates?
PPA require automatical builds from sources and we did not yet reached that step.
Regards,
Can I use it with debian build system, which, I think, is native building?
Thanks, Jiandong
2010/6/15 Marcin Juszkiewicz marcin.juszkiewicz@linaro.org
Dnia wtorek, 15 czerwca 2010 o 17:05:24 Amit Kucheria napisał(a):
Cool! Any chance of this showing up in a PPA for easier updates?
PPA require automatical builds from sources and we did not yet reached that step.
Regards,
JID: hrw@jabber.org Website: http://marcin.juszkiewicz.com.pl/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinjuszkiewicz
Linaro-dev mailing list Linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
On 15.06.2010 18:23, JD Zheng wrote:
Can I use it with debian build system, which, I think, is native building?
Currently, the cross toolchain packages are based on the maverick gcc-4.4 packages. Experimental native Linaro gcc-4.4 packages can be found in the ubuntu-toolchain-r PPA. See https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-toolchain-r/+archive/ppa
These packages will likely be used in the future to build the cross-compiler packages as well.
Matthias
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010, JD Zheng wrote:
Can I use it with debian build system, which, I think, is native building?
You can cross-build Debian-format packages with cross-compilers using: dpkg-buildpackage -aarmel
Most Debian-style packages are built natively and not cross-built, so you'll meet issues along the way, but this is precisely the way we intend to use these packages. The recommended frontend for such cross-compilation is "xdeb" (lp:xdeb) which was just uploaded to maverick.
Hello,
2010/6/15 Loïc Minier loic.minier@linaro.org:
Most Debian-style packages are built natively and not cross-built, so you'll meet issues along the way, but this is precisely the way we intend to use these packages. The recommended frontend for such cross-compilation is "xdeb" (lp:xdeb) which was just uploaded to maverick.
Is there a chance to also upload ``xdeb`` to Debian (experimental?) ?
Cheers,
Hello,
2010/6/15 Loïc Minier loic.minier@linaro.org:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010, Hector Oron wrote:
Is there a chance to also upload ``xdeb`` to Debian (experimental?) ?
Would you like to maintain it there? :-)
After testing it and check if it fits general criteria and long term usability I would not mind to maintain it within debian-embedded team.
Cheers :-)
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz < marcin.juszkiewicz@linaro.org> wrote:
Hi
At Linaro we are working on cross toolchain for ARM/EABI target (known as 'armel' in Debian and Ubuntu based systems). We base on work made by Debian and Ubuntu toolchain maintainers.
Latest version of cross toolchains are available in prebuilt form on:
http://people.canonical.com/~hrw/ubuntu-maverick-armel-cross-compilers/http://people.canonical.com/%7Ehrw/ubuntu-maverick-armel-cross-compilers/
I provide there gcc-4.4, gcc-4.5, binutils and eglibc packages. Use them, report bugs to Ubuntu launchpad.
Which ARM sub-architectures are supported by the toolchains or are planned because as far as I can understand then Linaro has not decided how to support these different versions yet. Haven't tried this toolchain but expect it to be generic arm ...
Nice work.
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010, Shaz wrote:
Which ARM sub-architectures are supported by the toolchains or are planned because as far as I can understand then Linaro has not decided how to support these different versions yet. Haven't tried this toolchain but expect it to be generic arm ...
The toolchain which Marcin built was built from current Ubuntu maverick packages which target armv7a + vfpv3-d16 and default to Thumb(-2) mode.
The resulting cross-toolchain can target any arch and fpu variants supported in GCC 4.4.4 for the 4.4 packages and 4.5.0 for the 4.5 ones.
It should relatively doable to create your own toolchain with different defaults, or using a different GCC patchset, using the same approach.
Linaro's toolchain is based on the FSF one; new developments will mostly be ARM related. For now, Linaro pre-built packages will be as in the default toolchain config described above, but it's possible to rebuild them with any opt you like; Peter Pearse is notably leading an effort to do armv5+vfp and armv6+vfp cross-rebuilds of some packages.
Dnia wtorek, 15 czerwca 2010 o 16:32:48 Marcin Juszkiewicz napisał(a):
Latest version of cross toolchains are available in prebuilt form on:
http://people.canonical.com/~hrw/ubuntu-maverick-armel-cross-compilers/
Today I updated gcc-4.4 to Linaro version, gcc-4.5 and binutils to latest Ubuntu versions.
As there were requests I changed structure of repository - now only one line for sources.list instead of two.
Regards,
2010.07.20
updated gcc-4.4 to 4.4.4-7ubuntu1 and fixed dependencies of some packages updated gcc-4.5 to 4.5.0-8ubuntu1 and fixed dependencies of some packages updated binutils to 2.20.51.20100710-1ubuntu2 and reverted sysroot change updated ARM libraries to latest versions
Marcin,
do you know when these packages will end up in ubuntu archives? can we expect them to be available in 10.10 timeframe?
How about cross compilation of packages, is that working? e.g. can I create an ARM .deb from my x86 machine (assuming my upstream can be cross compiled?).
thanks,
nicolas
On 07/20/2010 05:59 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
2010.07.20
updated gcc-4.4 to 4.4.4-7ubuntu1 and fixed dependencies of some packages updated gcc-4.5 to 4.5.0-8ubuntu1 and fixed dependencies of some packages updated binutils to 2.20.51.20100710-1ubuntu2 and reverted sysroot change updated ARM libraries to latest versions
linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Dnia czwartek, 22 lipca 2010 o 15:59:07 Dechesne, Nicolas napisał(a):
do you know when these packages will end up in ubuntu archives? can we expect them to be available in 10.10 timeframe?
They are scheduled for 10.10-beta so far. Everything looks like it is doable.
How about cross compilation of packages, is that working? e.g. can I create an ARM .deb from my x86 machine (assuming my upstream can be cross compiled?).
You can use "xdeb" tool to cross compile packages. It works most of time and we are working on fixing problems.
On 07/22/2010 04:08 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
Dnia czwartek, 22 lipca 2010 o 15:59:07 Dechesne, Nicolas napisał(a):
do you know when these packages will end up in ubuntu archives? can we expect them to be available in 10.10 timeframe?
They are scheduled for 10.10-beta so far. Everything looks like it is doable.
thanks. that would be very nice.
How about cross compilation of packages, is that working? e.g. can I create an ARM .deb from my x86 machine (assuming my upstream can be cross compiled?).
You can use "xdeb" tool to cross compile packages. It works most of time and we are working on fixing problems.
I was able to cross compile some of my package with dpkg-buildpackage -aarmel. However I am not able to install the -dev packages that I generated (it contains .h files that are required to build my next set of packages). I have used dpkg -a armel -i foo_armel.deb, and it complains about pkg-config-armel-cross missing. what is the standard procedure to install build-dep so that I can build all my packages? the package files (.h, .la) have been installed in /usr/arm-linux-gnueabi, but not the .so (which kind of make sense). but should I worry about the pkg-config issue?
linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Hi Nicolas,
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 03:59:07PM +0200, Dechesne, Nicolas wrote:
do you know when these packages will end up in ubuntu archives? can we expect them to be available in 10.10 timeframe?
How about cross compilation of packages, is that working? e.g. can I create an ARM .deb from my x86 machine (assuming my upstream can be cross compiled?).
Cross-compilation of packages works, but is dependent on both the upstream and the packaging being cross-build-friendly. I guess if it's your own package, then you've addressed this. :)
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 02:46:57PM +0200, Dechesne, Nicolas wrote:
I was able to cross compile some of my package with dpkg-buildpackage -aarmel. However I am not able to install the -dev packages that I generated (it contains .h files that are required to build my next set of packages). I have used dpkg -a armel -i foo_armel.deb, and it complains about pkg-config-armel-cross missing. what is the standard procedure to install build-dep so that I can build all my packages? the package files (.h, .la) have been installed in /usr/arm-linux-gnueabi, but not the .so (which kind of make sense). but should I worry about the pkg-config issue?
When does it complain about pkg-config-armel-cross? That doesn't sound like intended behavior, but I've not looked at pkg-config handling within dpkg-cross and the like.
Why do you say it makes sense not to install the .so in /usr/arm-linux-gnueabi? Sounds to me like a rather critical bit of the -dev package to have included.
+++ Dechesne, Nicolas [2010-07-23 14:46 +0200]:
How about cross compilation of packages, is that working? e.g. can I create an ARM .deb from my x86 machine (assuming my upstream can be cross compiled?).
You can use "xdeb" tool to cross compile packages. It works most of time and we are working on fixing problems.
Or, in principle, pdebuild-cross which, like pbuilder, has the advantage that you build in a clean environment so you don't fill your normal environment with (cross) -dev packages, and you do get to notice unlisted dependencies. However right now it doesn't work properly on Ubuntu due to Debian-related assumptions. I'm fixing that too.
I was able to cross compile some of my package with dpkg-buildpackage -aarmel. However I am not able to install the -dev packages that I generated (it contains .h files that are required to build my next set of packages). I have used dpkg -a armel -i foo_armel.deb, and it complains about pkg-config-armel-cross missing.
That doesn't make much sense. dpkg doesn't (yet!) take a -a <arch> option. Do you mean that you ran dpkg-cross -a armel -i foo-dev_armel.deb?
and that complained that pkg-config-armel-cross was missing?
That is expected: dpkg-cross only knows about the packages you put in front of it. It does not know which dependencies are arch-independent, because the package metadata doesn't say. So if your (armel) package depends on pkg-config then dpkg-cross will generate a native (amd64/i386?) package which depends on pkg-config-armel-cross (as well as foo-armel-cross and -armel-cross version of anything else in the deps list). When it tries to install that generated package it complains about the missing deps.
You can use -X to exclude all the dependencies which are in fact arch-independent so: dpkg-cross -a armel -X pkg-config -i foo-dev_armel.deb will perhaps do the trick for you.
aside: [(use dpkg-cross -a armel -b foo-dev_armel.deb) to build the package so you can examine it before installing normally with dpkg -i). (you can set -a armel as a default in /etc/dpkg-cross/cross-compile to save typing if you are always targetting the same arch) ]
Obviously this -X stuff is cumbersome, which is why you don't normally want to use dpkg-cross directly, but wrap it in some smarter tool which will call it with appropriate -X options for you.
what is the standard procedure to install build-dep so that I can build all my packages? the package files (.h, .la) have been installed in /usr/arm-linux-gnueabi, but not the .so (which kind of make sense). but should I worry about the pkg-config issue?
The correct installation of cross-dependencies and arch-independent dependencies is an unpleasantly complicated area (despite being superficially dead simple), because it's actually very difficult to know which deps are arch-independent and which aren't, and thus at what point(s) the cross-deps tree should be terminated in the native dependency tree. Better metadata would help a lot here. In the meantime various tools have been created which will make their best guess.
xdeb, apt-cross, pdebuild-cross(xapt) and apt-ma-emu all take different approaches to solving this problem and currently none of them will always get it right.
On ubuntu right now either xdeb or manual use of dpkg-cross and -X, as explained above, is your best bet. Your options should improve very shortly.
Wookey
On 07/25/2010 02:48 PM, Wookey wrote:
+++ Dechesne, Nicolas [2010-07-23 14:46 +0200]:
How about cross compilation of packages, is that working? e.g. can I create an ARM .deb from my x86 machine (assuming my upstream can be cross compiled?).
You can use "xdeb" tool to cross compile packages. It works most of time and we are working on fixing problems.
Or, in principle, pdebuild-cross which, like pbuilder, has the advantage that you build in a clean environment so you don't fill your normal environment with (cross) -dev packages, and you do get to notice unlisted dependencies. However right now it doesn't work properly on Ubuntu due to Debian-related assumptions. I'm fixing that too.
thanks for this tip. right now I am trying to setup a working cross compilation environment, and I am using a specific VM for testing. it's good to know that pbuilder can work too, because that's what we use natively today already, so we will setup the cross version as well.
I was able to cross compile some of my package with dpkg-buildpackage -aarmel. However I am not able to install the -dev packages that I generated (it contains .h files that are required to build my next set of packages). I have used dpkg -a armel -i foo_armel.deb, and it complains about pkg-config-armel-cross missing.
That doesn't make much sense. dpkg doesn't (yet!) take a -a<arch> option. Do you mean that you ran dpkg-cross -a armel -i foo-dev_armel.deb?
and that complained that pkg-config-armel-cross was missing?
you are right... I meant dpkg-cross ;-)
That is expected: dpkg-cross only knows about the packages you put in front of it. It does not know which dependencies are arch-independent, because the package metadata doesn't say. So if your (armel) package depends on pkg-config then dpkg-cross will generate a native (amd64/i386?) package which depends on pkg-config-armel-cross (as well as foo-armel-cross and -armel-cross version of anything else in the deps list). When it tries to install that generated package it complains about the missing deps.
You can use -X to exclude all the dependencies which are in fact arch-independent so: dpkg-cross -a armel -X pkg-config -i foo-dev_armel.deb will perhaps do the trick for you.
it is now working fine with the -X option. is it an acceptable solution to cross install pkg-config package? I guess it would in turn install pkg-config-armel-cross, right?
aside: [(use dpkg-cross -a armel -b foo-dev_armel.deb) to build the package so you can examine it before installing normally with dpkg -i). (you can set -a armel as a default in /etc/dpkg-cross/cross-compile to save typing if you are always targetting the same arch) ]
Obviously this -X stuff is cumbersome, which is why you don't normally want to use dpkg-cross directly, but wrap it in some smarter tool which will call it with appropriate -X options for you.
i will look into xdev, as recommended in this mailing list as well. thanks a lot for your help.
what is the standard procedure to install build-dep so that I can build all my packages? the package files (.h, .la) have been installed in /usr/arm-linux-gnueabi, but not the .so (which kind of make sense). but should I worry about the pkg-config issue?
The correct installation of cross-dependencies and arch-independent dependencies is an unpleasantly complicated area (despite being superficially dead simple), because it's actually very difficult to know which deps are arch-independent and which aren't, and thus at what point(s) the cross-deps tree should be terminated in the native dependency tree. Better metadata would help a lot here. In the meantime various tools have been created which will make their best guess.
xdeb, apt-cross, pdebuild-cross(xapt) and apt-ma-emu all take different approaches to solving this problem and currently none of them will always get it right.
On ubuntu right now either xdeb or manual use of dpkg-cross and -X, as explained above, is your best bet. Your options should improve very shortly.
Wookey
On 07/24/2010 06:44 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi Nicolas,
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 03:59:07PM +0200, Dechesne, Nicolas wrote:
do you know when these packages will end up in ubuntu archives? can we expect them to be available in 10.10 timeframe?
How about cross compilation of packages, is that working? e.g. can I create an ARM .deb from my x86 machine (assuming my upstream can be cross compiled?).
Cross-compilation of packages works, but is dependent on both the upstream and the packaging being cross-build-friendly. I guess if it's your own package, then you've addressed this. :)
yes, i am aware. all our packages already cross build (we used to develop with openembedded ;-))
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 02:46:57PM +0200, Dechesne, Nicolas wrote:
I was able to cross compile some of my package with dpkg-buildpackage -aarmel. However I am not able to install the -dev packages that I generated (it contains .h files that are required to build my next set of packages). I have used dpkg -a armel -i foo_armel.deb, and it complains about pkg-config-armel-cross missing. what is the standard procedure to install build-dep so that I can build all my packages? the package files (.h, .la) have been installed in /usr/arm-linux-gnueabi, but not the .so (which kind of make sense). but should I worry about the pkg-config issue?
When does it complain about pkg-config-armel-cross? That doesn't sound like intended behavior, but I've not looked at pkg-config handling within dpkg-cross and the like.
wookey's reply in this thread was very instructive, and perfectly addressed my problem.
Why do you say it makes sense not to install the .so in /usr/arm-linux-gnueabi? Sounds to me like a rather critical bit of the -dev package to have included.
well... the .so is included in the standard package, not the -dev... i forgot to check this one too!
+++ Dechesne, Nicolas [2010-07-26 14:39 +0200]:
On 07/25/2010 02:48 PM, Wookey wrote:
+++ Dechesne, Nicolas [2010-07-23 14:46 +0200]:
You can use -X to exclude all the dependencies which are in fact arch-independent so: dpkg-cross -a armel -X pkg-config -i foo-dev_armel.deb will perhaps do the trick for you.
it is now working fine with the -X option. is it an acceptable solution to cross install pkg-config package? I guess it would in turn install pkg-config-armel-cross, right?
It is acceptable, but pointless. pkg-config does not contain any files which should be cross-installed so after dpkg-cross has processed it from pkg-config_0.25-1_armel.deb to pkg-config-armel-cross_0.25-1_all.deb you get a null package, containing nothing but a README file. This is a dependency which should be supplied by the native pkg-config package.
i will look into xdev, as recommended in this mailing list as well. thanks a lot for your help.
No problem. I am in the process of writing up an overview of the current state of cross-building in Debian and Ubuntu because there are a number of tools with different pros and cons and it's hard to understand what you should/shouldn't be doing if you come to it fresh.
I hope that'll appear later this week, or maybe during Debconf.
Wookey
On 07/26/2010 02:55 PM, Wookey wrote:
I am in the process of writing up an overview of the current state of cross-building in Debian and Ubuntu because there are a number of tools with different pros and cons and it's hard to understand what you should/shouldn't be doing if you come to it fresh.
I hope that'll appear later this week, or maybe during Debconf.
that would be awesome ;-) can you please notify us on this thread when something is available? thx!
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 01:48:36PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
what is the standard procedure to install build-dep so that I can build all my packages? the package files (.h, .la) have been installed in /usr/arm-linux-gnueabi, but not the .so (which kind of make sense). but should I worry about the pkg-config issue?
The correct installation of cross-dependencies and arch-independent dependencies is an unpleasantly complicated area (despite being superficially dead simple), because it's actually very difficult to know which deps are arch-independent and which aren't, and thus at what point(s) the cross-deps tree should be terminated in the native dependency tree. Better metadata would help a lot here. In the meantime various tools have been created which will make their best guess.
Better metadata is on the way, via multiarch.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MultiarchSpec
Perhaps it would be beneficial to begin annotating some of these Multi-Arch: foreign packages so that dpkg-cross can make use of that information, independently of dpkg implementing support for co-installation of Multi-Arch: same library packages?
Hi, Linaoer, I'm one SW engineer named Jason Liu from Freescale. I noticed that there are some discussion about the arm-cross-toolchain. I want to know the following:
What cross-tool chain will Linaro use? What's the version number? Will it enable ARM-V7 support? Will it enalbe NEON support? What's the improvement for the memcpy function? What I'm asking this question due to that we meet the peformance drop when we upgrade gcc version from 4.1.2 to higher version.
Thanks.
BR, Jason
-----Original Message----- From: linaro-dev-bounces@lists.linaro.org [mailto:linaro-dev-bounces@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Marcin Juszkiewicz Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 12:00 PM To: linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org Subject: Re: [Linaro-dev] Maverick cross toolchain
2010.07.20
updated gcc-4.4 to 4.4.4-7ubuntu1 and fixed dependencies of some packages updated gcc-4.5 to 4.5.0-8ubuntu1 and fixed dependencies of some packages updated binutils to 2.20.51.20100710-1ubuntu2 and reverted sysroot change updated ARM libraries to latest versions
linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Hi Jason. There's a couple of different things going on here. The Toolchain Working Group, which I am a part of, is working on both 4.4 and 4.5 based versions of GCC. We want the Linaro version to be 'the toolchain for ARM', as in the one that people first go to when thinking about an ARM project.
The 4.4 version is being used by Ubuntu as their default compiler. The 4.5 version is where the new work and performance improvements will go. Both are focused on the Cortex-A series and have Thumb2, NEON, and Cortex-A specific optimisations. We will also be be supplying a standard cross-compiler builds that can be installed on your Ubuntu based host machine.
Regarding benchmarks, I'd recommend you wait a week for our next release and give it a try on your actual code. We're very interested in any feedback and any performance regressions compared to earlier versions.
Hope that helps,
-- Michael
The best benchmark to try On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Liu Hui-R64343 r64343@freescale.com wrote:
Hi, Linaoer,
I'm one SW engineer named Jason Liu from Freescale. I noticed that there are some discussion about the arm-cross-toolchain. I want to know the following:
What cross-tool chain will Linaro use? What's the version number? Will it enable ARM-V7 support? Will it enalbe NEON support? What's the improvement for the memcpy function? What I'm asking this question due to that we meet the peformance drop when we upgrade gcc version from 4.1.2 to higher version.
Thanks.
BR, Jason
-----Original Message----- From: linaro-dev-bounces@lists.linaro.org [mailto:linaro-dev-bounces@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Marcin Juszkiewicz Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 12:00 PM To: linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org Subject: Re: [Linaro-dev] Maverick cross toolchain
2010.07.20
updated gcc-4.4 to 4.4.4-7ubuntu1 and fixed dependencies of some packages updated gcc-4.5 to 4.5.0-8ubuntu1 and fixed dependencies of some packages updated binutils to 2.20.51.20100710-1ubuntu2 and reverted sysroot change updated ARM libraries to latest versions
linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
Hi, Michael Thanks for your reply. :) OK, I will wait for the next release and would like to give it a try on our I.MX51/MX53 platforms and give you valuable feedback.
BR, Jason
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Hope [mailto:michael.hope@linaro.org] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 4:36 PM To: Liu Hui-R64343 Cc: linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org; loic.minier@linaro.org Subject: Re: Cross toolchain
Hi Jason. There's a couple of different things going on here. The Toolchain Working Group, which I am a part of, is working on both 4.4 and 4.5 based versions of GCC. We want the Linaro version to be 'the toolchain for ARM', as in the one that people first go to when thinking about an ARM project.
The 4.4 version is being used by Ubuntu as their default compiler. The 4.5 version is where the new work and performance improvements will go. Both are focused on the Cortex-A series and have Thumb2, NEON, and Cortex-A specific optimisations. We will also be be supplying a standard cross-compiler builds that can be installed on your Ubuntu based host machine.
Regarding benchmarks, I'd recommend you wait a week for our next release and give it a try on your actual code. We're very interested in any feedback and any performance regressions compared to earlier versions.
Hope that helps,
-- Michael
The best benchmark to try On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Liu Hui-R64343 r64343@freescale.com wrote:
Hi, Linaoer,
I'm one SW engineer named Jason Liu from Freescale. I noticed that there are some discussion about the arm-cross-toolchain. I want to know the following:
What cross-tool chain will Linaro use? What's the version number? Will it enable ARM-V7 support? Will it enalbe NEON support? What's the improvement for the memcpy function? What I'm
asking this
question due to that we meet the peformance drop when we
upgrade gcc
version from 4.1.2 to higher version.
Thanks.
BR, Jason
-----Original Message----- From: linaro-dev-bounces@lists.linaro.org [mailto:linaro-dev-bounces@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Marcin Juszkiewicz Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 12:00 PM To: linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org Subject: Re: [Linaro-dev] Maverick cross toolchain
2010.07.20
updated gcc-4.4 to 4.4.4-7ubuntu1 and fixed dependencies of some packages updated gcc-4.5 to 4.5.0-8ubuntu1 and fixed
dependencies of
some packages updated binutils to 2.20.51.20100710-1ubuntu2 and reverted sysroot change updated ARM libraries to latest versions
linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
-
Alexander Sack -
Amit Kucheria -
Dechesne, Nicolas -
Hector Oron -
JD Zheng -
Liu Hui-R64343 -
Loïc Minier -
Marcin Juszkiewicz -
Marcin Juszkiewicz -
Matthias Klose -
Michael Hope -
Shaz -
Steve Langasek -
Wookey