== Progress == * Fixed build failures caused by 2014.08 based Android toolchains * Rewrote NDK build scripts to build everything from source instead of patching the upstream release (allowing us to build from master branch) * Created reduced test cases for compiler issues * Worked on cbuild2 toolchain releases
== Plans == * cbuild2 toolchain releases * NDK testing
== Issues == * A cbuild2 showstopper bug seems to not be reproducible by TCWG
Op 22 aug. 2014, om 11:56 heeft Bernhard Rosenkränzer Bernhard.Rosenkranzer@linaro.org het volgende geschreven:
== Progress ==
- Fixed build failures caused by 2014.08 based Android toolchains
- Rewrote NDK build scripts to build everything from source instead of patching the upstream release (allowing us to build from master branch)
- Created reduced test cases for compiler issues
- Worked on cbuild2 toolchain releases
With the switch to cbuild2 can we please get rid of the timestamp in the filename? It causing me a lot of pain when updating the links. No one cares on which day it was built and only leads to questions like "why is the BE toolchain newer?" when the build crossed midnight :/
Bad: gcc-linaro-arm-linux-gnueabihf-4.9-2014.07-20140723_win32.exe Good: gcc-linaro-arm-linux-gnueabihf-4.9-2014.07_win32.exe
Thanks,
-- Koen Kooi Builds and Baselines | Release Manager Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
On 27 August 2014 14:09, Koen Kooi koen.kooi@linaro.org wrote:
Op 22 aug. 2014, om 11:56 heeft Bernhard Rosenkränzer < Bernhard.Rosenkranzer@linaro.org> het volgende geschreven:
== Progress ==
- Fixed build failures caused by 2014.08 based Android toolchains
- Rewrote NDK build scripts to build everything from source instead of
patching the upstream release (allowing us to build from master branch)
- Created reduced test cases for compiler issues
- Worked on cbuild2 toolchain releases
With the switch to cbuild2 can we please get rid of the timestamp in the filename? It causing me a lot of pain when updating the links. No one cares on which day it was built and only leads to questions like "why is the BE toolchain newer?" when the build crossed midnight :/
sure. cbuild2 uses a completely different naming/packaging scheme anyway.
We should get some cbuild2 based builds for testing next week.
ttyl bero
On 08/27/2014 06:09 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
With the switch to cbuild2 can we please get rid of the timestamp in the filename? It causing me a lot of pain when updating the links. No one cares on which day it was built and only leads to questions like "why is the BE toolchain newer?" when the build crossed midnight :/
Just as a followup, the cbuild2 produced binary tarballs are named like this: (ignore the .99, it's just for testing)
gcc-linaro-4.9-2014.99-x86_64_arm-linux-gnueabihf.tar.xz gcc-linaro-4.9-2014.99-x86_64_arm-linux-gnueabihf.tar.xz.asc runtime-linaro-gcc4.9-2014.99-arm-linux-gnueabihf.tar.xz runtime-linaro-gcc4.9-2014.99-arm-linux-gnueabihf.tar.xz.asc sysroot-linaro-eglibc-gcc4.9-2014.99-arm-linux-gnueabihf.tar.xz sysroot-linaro-eglibc-gcc4.9-2014.99-arm-linux-gnueabihf.tar.xz.asc
- rob -
-
Bernhard Rosenkränzer -
Koen Kooi -
Rob Savoye