== This week ==
* TCWG-317 - Exploit wide add operations when appropriate for Aarch32 (0/10)
- No comments/review upstream will ping for update
* TCWG-316 - Exploit vector multiply by scalar instructions (4/10)
- Code improvements will require standard name for vectorizer and new
patterns
- On hold until GCC 6 is released
* Bugzilla 68543 - [AArch64] Implement overflow arithmetic standard
names (3/10)
- Initial investigation
* Bugzilla 68532 - [ARM] Incorrect code result on arm big endian (2/10)
- Investigation into understanding how vectorizer represents lanes vs
arm big endian back end
- Solution suspended until I can coordinate with Charlie
* Misc (1/10)
- Conference calls
== Next week ==
* Bugzilla 68543 - Implement add and subtract overflow operations and test
* TCWG-317 - Ping upstream and respond to upstream feedback
* Bugzilla 68532 - Coordinate with Charlie
== Progress ==
* Ill (4/10)
* Support (1/10)
- Bugzilla issues (PR20490, PR24635, PR24350, PR20025, PR25720, PR25722)
* Benchmarks (1/10)
- Checking some previous benchmark results on A57
* Buildbots (2/10)
- Getting AArch64 full bot back to rotation, since it's stable now
- Re-enabling libc++ prototypes on local master
- Bisecting broken test-suite
- Another power cut in the office sent all the bots down... :(
* Background (2/10)
- Code review, meetings, discussions, general support, etc.
- Validating some old sanitizer bugs
- FOSDEM admin
* One day off on Monday.
# Progress #
* Answer ST questions about supporting multi-arch with ST jtag probe.
[1/10]
* TCWG-171, Enable gdb core file tests when testing remotely, [3/10].
Ongoing.
* Run gdb.base/sizeof.exp with board having gdb,noinferiorio. Done.
[1/10]
* TCWG-460, mutli-arch follow-up work, teach AArch64 GDBserver
understand ARM breakpoint instructions. Patch is approved. [2/10].
* TCWG-424, fail in gdb.base/random-signal.exp. [1/10] Root cause is
identified, need to figure out how to fix it in next step.
* Review ARM GDBserver software single step patch V4.
# Plan #
* TCWG-171, TCWG-156, TCWG-424.
* Review ARM GDBserver software single step patch V5, which should be
the final version, I hope.
--
Yao
== Progress ==
* Validation
- a few cleanup patches in the comparison scripts
- contribute to debug of ptys allocation problems:
the tests pass when executed outside of our schroots.
- improvements in the reports from the validation
done in the ST Compute Farm
- reported a few regressions
* GCC
- cleanup patch for target attributes tests,
- pr68620 (fp16 transfers in big-endian mode)
* Misc (conf calls, meetings, emails, ....)
== Next ==
* Validation: monitoring, improvements
* GCC: bug fixes, cleanup
Hi Linaro Toolchian Group,
I am new to GCC development and have some basic question on its development
process.
Could you please give some insight on below questions. (Apology if they are
very trivial).
I have read https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html
If I am correct, gcc trunk is on gcc 6.0.0 (stage 3) at present and will
becomes 6.0.1 (regression fix only) in January 2016.
gcc 6.0.1 will be released as gcc 6.1.0 in April, 2016 and from there
onwards gcc 6 release branch will start.
However, There is also a gcc 5 branch in parallel whose current version is
5.2.1 and will be released as gcc 5.3 soon.
Hopefully gcc 5.3 would be the last release in gcc 5 series. (Please
correct me if I am wrong).
[Questions]
1. What is the difference between experimental(gcc 6.0.0 stage 3) & gcc
release branch (gcc 5.2.1)?
Is there any rule which decides which changes will go where?
In case, I have some patches for new aarch64 processor at present, in
which branch these changes would be merged (assuming they passes reviews)?
2. How is the subversion of release branches are decided? Is it correct to
say that there will be always 3 subversion of any release branch (e.g. gcc
5.1, gcc 5.2 & gcc 5.3)?
3. What is the working model between GNU GCC and Linaro GCC? Does Linaro
directly accept patches? or they need to go to GNU GCC first?
Thanks in advance for your time.
with regards,
Virendra Kumar Pathak
--
with regards,
Virendra Kumar Pathak
Keeping linaro-toolchain in the loop.
Robert
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Schiele <rschiele(a)gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: Lost upstream patch in merge from gcc-5-branch to
linaro/gcc-5-branch
To: Yvan Roux <yvan.roux(a)linaro.org>
Hi Yvan,
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Yvan Roux <yvan.roux(a)linaro.org> wrote:
> This fix on gcc-5-branch doesn't apply on Linaro 5 branch, because we
> have backported trunk revision 222624 (which renames maybe_fma to
> coumpound_p) into it. So, our branch as the same code as trunk one
> regarding aarch64_rtx_costs. Do you experiment any issues related to
> this change ?
No issues. This was just a theoretical thought and through our CI
build I learned exactly what you just told me the hard way now.
Sorry for the noise.
Robert
abe.sh in the ABE framework accepts a parameter to set the wget timeout
when it fetches snapshots (default 10s); however that parameter has an
upper threshold of 10 seconds (condition at line 996 only sets timeout
to specified value if < 11). Is this intentional? It seems like it would
make more sense to give it a floor instead of a ceiling or perhaps not
limit the range of potential values at all.
Best regards,
Chris Roberts
hi guys,
sorry maybe my question is stupid as i am not a toolchain guy.
i have no idea why ld.so search so many paths. for example, put
"-rpath" with /home/cnb1szh/test in a simple test program. then during
dynamic linking at runtime, we get the below linking debug
information:
30693: find library=libmytest.so [0]; searching
30693: search path=/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/v7l/neon/vfp:/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/v7l/neon:/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/v7l/vfp:/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/v7l:/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/neon/vfp:/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/neon:/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/vfp:/home/cnb1szh/test/tls:/home/cnb1szh/test/v7l/neon/vfp:/home/cnb1szh/test/v7l/neon:/home/cnb1szh/test/v7l/vfp:/home/cnb1szh/test/v7l:/home/cnb1szh/test/neon/vfp:/home/cnb1szh/test/neon:/home/cnb1szh/test/vfp:/home/cnb1szh/test
(RPATH from file ./hello)
30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/v7l/neon/vfp/libmytest.so
30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/v7l/neon/libmytest.so
30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/v7l/vfp/libmytest.so
30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/v7l/libmytest.so
30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/neon/vfp/libmytest.so
30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/neon/libmytest.so
30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/vfp/libmytest.so
30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/libmytest.so
30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/v7l/neon/vfp/libmytest.so
30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/v7l/neon/libmytest.so
30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/v7l/vfp/libmytest.so
30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/v7l/libmytest.so
30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/neon/vfp/libmytest.so
30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/neon/libmytest.so
30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/vfp/libmytest.so
30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/libmytest.so
but we don't have /home/cnb1szh/test/tls/, /home/cnb1szh/test/v7l/,
/home/cnb1szh/test/vfp/, /home/cnb1szh/test/neon/, why does the ld.so
search so many paths?
-barry
Hi,
I found that with the merge
commit ac19ac6481a3f326d9f41403f5dadab548b2c8a6
Author: Yvan Roux <yvan.roux(a)linaro.org>
Date: Wed Sep 16 10:57:42 2015 +0200
Merge branches/gcc-5-branch rev 227732.
Change-Id: I2f59904b28323b1c72a8cf1bd62c9e460d95bcea
the following branch that was within merge range on gcc-5-branch was
lost on the linaro branch:
commit b45a5cf7c1544f95578e823e25402b58fb3fbedd
Author: nsz <nsz@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4>
Date: Tue Aug 4 16:49:54 2015 +0000
Fix broken backport patch.
gcc:
Backport from mainline:
2015-08-04 Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy(a)arm.com>
PR target/66731
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_rtx_costs): Fix NEG cost for FNMUL.
(aarch64_rtx_mult_cost): Fix MULT cost with -frounding-math.
git-svn-id:
svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5-branch@226588
138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4
diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
index 691874b..eebc9c3 100644
--- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
+++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c
@@ -5250,7 +5250,7 @@ aarch64_rtx_mult_cost (rtx x, int code, int
outer, bool speed)
which case FNMUL is different than FMUL with operand negation. */
bool neg0 = GET_CODE (op0) == NEG;
bool neg1 = GET_CODE (op1) == NEG;
- if (compound_p || !flag_rounding_math || (neg0 && neg1))
+ if (maybe_fma || !flag_rounding_math || (neg0 && neg1))
{
if (neg0)
op0 = XEXP (op0, 0);
Since this was a fix to the patch one commit ahead and also merged in
the same operation and there is no further comment on why this fix was
skipped, may I assume that this happened by accident and you probably
want to fix that merge flaw by reapplying the missing patch? Or is
there an information detail I don't have that requires this fix to be
skipped on the Linaro branch?
Robert
Controlled image builds - TCWG-360 [1/10]
* Tried, failed to generate bootable images
Jenkins benchmarking job - TCWG-348 [5/10]
* Jenkins job functional on kvms in main instance
* Wrote job-dispatch script for non-Jenkins use cases
Juno crashdump [1/10]
* Struggled with, worked around network problems
* Juno running, waiting for it to crash
SPEC-on-Android [1/10]
* Helped Qian to find root cause of a problem
Misc [2/10]
=Plan=
Review security with shared uinstance/main instance code
Expose more data, benchmarks to bundles
Debug/test Jenkins job in microinstance
Create bootable image for at least 1 target, or know what the problems are
Write up noise control report (if time)
Probably more support for SPEC-on-Android
