linaro-toolchain April 2024

linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org

16 participants
19 discussions

RE: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #89057: FAIL: 28 regressions on arm

by Andrew Pinski (QUIC)

These are all expected "failures" for arm (aarch32) really; the new testcases were known to fail for that target; it is recorded as PR 224847. I was not sure how to record this besides in the commit message. Should I xfail them for the targets that are known to fail? Thanks, Andrew Pinski > -----Original Message----- > From: ci_notify(a)linaro.org <ci_notify(a)linaro.org> > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 3:15 PM > To: Andrew Pinski (QUIC) <quic_apinski(a)quicinc.com> > Subject: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #89057: FAIL: 28 regressions on arm > > Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your > patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any questions, please > follow up on linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org mailing list, Libera's #linaro-tcwg > channel, or ping your favourite Linaro toolchain developer on the usual project > channel. > > We appreciate that it might be difficult to find the necessary logs or reproduce > the issue locally. If you can't get what you need from our CI within minutes, let > us know and we will be happy to help. > > In gcc_check master-arm after: > > | gcc patch https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/89057 > | Author: Andrew Pinski <quic_apinski(a)quicinc.com> > | Date: Fri Apr 26 10:07:40 2024 -0700 > | > | aarch64: Fix normal returns inside functions which use eh_returns > [PR114843] > | > | The problem here is that on a normal return path, we still restore the > | eh data return when we should not. > | Instead of one return path in the case of eh_return, this changes over > | to use multiple returns pathes just like a normal function. > | On the normal path (non-eh return), we need to skip restoring of the eh > | ... 43 lines of the commit log omitted. > | ... applied on top of baseline commit: > | 6b86f71165d AArch64: Cleanup memset expansion > > FAIL: 28 regressions > > regressions.sum: > === gcc tests === > > Running gcc:gcc.c-torture/execute/execute.exp ... > FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/eh_return-1.c -O0 execution test > FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/eh_return-1.c -O1 execution test > FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/eh_return-1.c -O2 execution test > FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/eh_return-1.c -O2 -flto -fno-use-linker-plugin - > flto-partition=none execution test > FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/eh_return-1.c -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin -fno- > fat-lto-objects execution test > FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/eh_return-1.c -O3 -g execution test > FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/eh_return-1.c -Os execution test ... and 22 more > entries > > You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm- > precommit/6993/artifact/artifacts/artifacts.precommit/00-sumfiles/ > The full lists of regressions and progressions as well as configure and make > commands are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm- > precommit/6993/artifact/artifacts/artifacts.precommit/notify/ > The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm- > precommit/6993/artifact/artifacts/artifacts.precommit/sumfiles/xfails.xfail > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_gcc_check master-arm > > -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<---------------- > ---------- > The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: > > Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm- > precommit/6993/artifact/artifacts > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm- > build/2027/artifact/artifacts > > Warning: we do not enable maintainer-mode nor automatically update > generated files, which may lead to failures if the patch modifies the master > files.

4 days

[ACTIVITY] report week ending 26 Apr

by Peter Maydell

Progress: * UM-2 [QEMU upstream maintainership] - made the 9.0 release and handed over pullreq processing to RTH for the 9.1 cycle - collected up and sent out the first target-arm pullreq for 9.1 - finished creating JIRA issues for QEMU for FEAT_* features to bring us into sync with the rev K.a Arm ARM * QEMU-530 [QEMU ARMv9.5 Baseline CPU for TCG] - Sent out v2 of the "make CNTFRQ 1GHz" patchset. This version includes patches to keep sbsa-ref on the old 62.5MHz frequency (since there's no TF-A release yet with the fix to make it not hardcode that value) - Started looking at FEAT_WFxT (WFI/WFE with a timeout) -- PMM

4 days, 6 hours

gcc patch #88922: FAIL: 1 regressions on aarch64

by Paul Richard Thomas

Hi, Executing on host: /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_4/abe/builds/destdir/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu-gfortran /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_4/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr89462.f90 -fdiagnostics-plain-output -fdiagnostics-plain-output -O -pedantic-errors -S -o pr89462.s (timeout = 600) spawn -ignore SIGHUP /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_4/abe/builds/destdir/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu-gfortran /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_4/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr89462.f90 -fdiagnostics-plain-output -fdiagnostics-plain-output -O -pedantic-errors -S -o pr89462.s /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_4/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr89462.f90:6:14: Warning: Obsolescent feature: Old-style character length at (1) /home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_4/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr89462.f90:7:17: Warning: Obsolescent feature: Old-style character length at (1) As far as I can see, adding -pedantic-errors and the warning fixes the regression. Do you only run the pre-commit regression tests with -pedantic-errors? Thanks Paul

6 days, 16 hours

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 3 patches in gcc: FAIL: 260 regressions on arm

by Qing Zhao

Hi, I am wondering why I got the following message? I only sent patch review request to gcc-patches(a)gcc.gnu.org<mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, never committed the patches to any public repository. Are there anyone else applied the patches to sourceware and tested them? I have posted many patch review request to gcc-patches(a)gcc.gnu.org<mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, this is the first time I got such message. Thanks a lot for your help. Qing On Apr 20, 2024, at 00:27, ci_notify(a)linaro.org wrote: Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any questions, please follow up on linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org mailing list, Libera's #linaro-tcwg channel, or ping your favourite Linaro toolchain developer on the usual project channel. We appreciate that it might be difficult to find the necessary logs or reproduce the issue locally. If you can't get what you need from our CI within minutes, let us know and we will be happy to help. In gcc_check master-arm after: | 3 patches in gcc | Patchwork URL: https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/88759 | da63cf36d84 Add testing cases for flexible array members in unions and alone in structures. | 9a83cd642a0 C and C++ FE changes to support flexible array members in unions and alone in structures. | 513291ec443 Documentation change | ... applied on top of baseline commit: | 9f10005dbc9 RISC-V: Add xfail test case for wv insn register overlap FAIL: 260 regressions regressions.sum: === g++ tests === Running g++:g++.dg/dg.exp ... FAIL: c-c++-common/builtin-clear-padding-3.c -std=gnu++14 (test for errors, line 5) FAIL: c-c++-common/builtin-clear-padding-3.c -std=gnu++14 (test for excess errors) FAIL: c-c++-common/builtin-clear-padding-3.c -std=gnu++17 (test for errors, line 5) FAIL: c-c++-common/builtin-clear-padding-3.c -std=gnu++17 (test for excess errors) FAIL: c-c++-common/builtin-clear-padding-3.c -std=gnu++20 (test for errors, line 5) FAIL: c-c++-common/builtin-clear-padding-3.c -std=gnu++20 (test for excess errors) FAIL: c-c++-common/builtin-clear-padding-3.c -std=gnu++98 (test for errors, line 5) ... and 259 more entries You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-precommit/6897/artifac… The full lists of regressions and progressions as well as configure and make commands are in - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-precommit/6897/artifac… The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-precommit/6897/artifac… The configuration of this build is: CI config tcwg_gcc_check master-arm -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<-------------------------- The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-precommit/6897/artifac… Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_check--master-arm-build/1997/artifact/ar… Warning: we do not enable maintainer-mode nor automatically update generated files, which may lead to failures if the patch modifies the master files.

1 week

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gdb-14-branchpoint-2123-g4e417d7bb1c: FAIL: 3 regressions on aarch64

by Christophe Lyon

Hi Tom. As you may have noticed, your patch below caused regressions in the libstdc++ testsuite on aarch64: FAIL: libstdc++-prettyprinters/debug.cc print redirected FAIL: libstdc++-prettyprinters/simple.cc print redirected FAIL: libstdc++-prettyprinters/simple11.cc print redirected For instance, the log contains: $24 = Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/tcwg-buildslave/workspace/tcwg_gnu_5/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/../python/libstdcxx/v6/printers.py", line 2279, in to_string got: $24 = Traceback (most recent call last): FAIL: libstdc++-prettyprinters/debug.cc print redirected Do you know if this is a problem in GDB, or if the testcase needs an adjustment like recently for another one? Thanks, Christophe On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 at 01:39, <ci_notify(a)linaro.org> wrote: > > Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any questions, please follow up on linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org mailing list, Libera's #linaro-tcwg channel, or ping your favourite Linaro toolchain developer on the usual project channel. > > We appreciate that it might be difficult to find the necessary logs or reproduce the issue locally. If you can't get what you need from our CI within minutes, let us know and we will be happy to help. > > We track this report status in https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1202 , please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix. > > In master-aarch64 after: > > | commit gdb-14-branchpoint-2123-g4e417d7bb1c > | Author: Tom Tromey <tom(a)tromey.com> > | Date: Fri Jan 12 18:01:00 2024 -0700 > | > | Change handling of DW_TAG_enumeration_type in DWARF scanner > | > | Currently the DWARF scanner will enter enumeration constants into the > | same namespace as the DW_TAG_enumeration_type itself. This is the > | right thing to do, but the implementation may result in strange > | entries being added to the addrmap that maps DIE ranges to entries. > | > | ... 8 lines of the commit log omitted. > > FAIL: 3 regressions > > regressions.sum: > === libstdc++ tests === > > Running libstdc++:libstdc++-prettyprinters/prettyprinters.exp ... > FAIL: libstdc++-prettyprinters/debug.cc print redirected > FAIL: libstdc++-prettyprinters/simple.cc print redirected > FAIL: libstdc++-prettyprinters/simple11.cc print redirected > > > You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_gcc--master-aarch64-build/1… > The full lists of regressions and progressions as well as configure and make commands are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_gcc--master-aarch64-build/1… > The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_gcc--master-aarch64-build/1… > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_gnu_native_check_gcc master-aarch64 > > -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<-------------------------- > The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: > > Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_gcc--master-aarch64-build/1… > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_gcc--master-aarch64-build/1… > > Reproduce last good and first bad builds: https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gdb/sh… > > Full commit : https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commitdiff;h=4e417d7bb1c7d… > > List of configurations that regressed due to this commit : > * tcwg_gnu_native_check_gcc > ** master-aarch64 > *** FAIL: 3 regressions > *** https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gdb/sh… > *** https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gnu_native_check_gcc--master-aarch64-build/1…

1 week, 1 day

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gdb-14-branchpoint-2094-gc223d373883: FAIL: 5 regressions on arm

by Christophe Lyon

Hi Pedro, As you may have noticed, this patch caused new failures on arm. Are you working on a fix? Thanks, Christophe On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 at 16:59, <ci_notify(a)linaro.org> wrote: > > Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any questions, please follow up on linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org mailing list, Libera's #linaro-tcwg channel, or ping your favourite Linaro toolchain developer on the usual project channel. > > We appreciate that it might be difficult to find the necessary logs or reproduce the issue locally. If you can't get what you need from our CI within minutes, let us know and we will be happy to help. > > We track this report status in https://linaro.atlassian.net/browse/GNU-1198 , please let us know if you are looking at the problem and/or when you have a fix. > > In gdb_check master-arm after: > > | commit gdb-14-branchpoint-2094-gc223d373883 > | Author: Pedro Alves <pedro(a)palves.net> > | Date: Tue May 2 15:04:28 2023 +0100 > | > | Fix setting watchpoints when current thread is running > | > | Currently, when the current thread is running, you can print global > | variables. However, if you try to set a watchpoint on the same > | globals, GDB errors out, complaining that the selected thread is > | running. Like so: > | > | ... 37 lines of the commit log omitted. > > FAIL: 5 regressions > > regressions.sum: > === gdb tests === > > Running gdb:gdb.base/watchpoint-running.exp ... > FAIL: gdb.base/watchpoint-running.exp: all-stop: hardware: watch global_var > FAIL: gdb.base/watchpoint-running.exp: all-stop: hardware: watchpoint hit (timeout) > FAIL: gdb.base/watchpoint-running.exp: non-stop: hardware: watch global_var > FAIL: gdb.base/watchpoint-running.exp: non-stop: hardware: watchpoint hit (timeout) > > Running gdb:gdb.threads/signal-command-handle-nopass.exp ... > FAIL: gdb.threads/signal-command-handle-nopass.exp: step-over no: signal SIGUSR1 > ... and 1 more entries > > You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-build/1050/artifact/ar… > The full lists of regressions and progressions as well as configure and make commands are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-build/1050/artifact/ar… > The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-build/1050/artifact/ar… > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_gdb_check master-arm > > -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<-------------------------- > The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: > > Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-build/1050/artifact/ar… > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-build/1047/artifact/ar… > > Reproduce last good and first bad builds: https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gdb/sh… > > Full commit : https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commitdiff;h=c223d37388320… > > List of configurations that regressed due to this commit : > * tcwg_gdb_check > ** master-arm > *** FAIL: 5 regressions > *** https://git-us.linaro.org/toolchain/ci/interesting-commits.git/plain/gdb/sh… > *** https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm-build/1050/artifact/ar…

1 week, 1 day

[ACTIVITY] report week ending 19 Apr

by Peter Maydell

Progress: * UM-2 [QEMU upstream maintainership] - got rc4 out of the door; 9.0 release next week - working through the rev K.a Arm ARM to resync the list of architecture features we have implemented and the Linaro JIRA issues that track the ones we haven't. Sent a patchset that updates the QEMU documentation to the new feature names and the newly added features that previously were effectively considered part of baseline v8.0. - Sent patches that add some easy "no-op for QEMU" features: FEAT_CSV2_3, FEAT_ETS2, FEAT_Spec_FPACC. - Sorted out the last loose end in the FEAT_NMI patchseries (the cpuif should have a different "NMI supported" state to the IRI), and queued it ready for 9.1 - Queued a few other already-reviewed patchseries ready for 9.1 * QEMU-530 [QEMU ARMv9.5 Baseline CPU for TCG] - Making the generic timer default frequency be 1GHz (required for Arm v8.6 and above). I have patches for this, most of which are concerned with ensuring that for backwards-compatibility we don't use the new default on old CPU types and old versioned machines. -- PMM

1 week, 4 days

Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] gcc patch #88475: Failure on aarch64

by Christophe Lyon

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 12:15, <ci_notify(a)linaro.org> wrote: > > Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any questions, please follow up on linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org mailing list, Libera's #linaro-tcwg channel, or ping your favourite Linaro toolchain developer on the usual project channel. > > We appreciate that it might be difficult to find the necessary logs or reproduce the issue locally. If you can't get what you need from our CI within minutes, let us know and we will be happy to help. > > In gcc_build master-aarch64 after: > > | gcc patch https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/88475 > | Author: Fei Gao <gaofei(a)eswincomputing.com> > | Date: Mon Apr 15 06:33:17 2024 +0000 > | > | optimize Zicond conditional select cases. > | > | When one of the two input operands is 0, ADD and IOR are functionally > | equivalent. > | ADD is slightly preferred over IOR because ADD has a higher likelihood > | of being implemented as a compressed instruction when compared to IOR. > | C.ADD uses the CR format with any of the 32 RVI registers availble, > | ... 21 lines of the commit log omitted. > | ... applied on top of baseline commit: > | 7f4ba5480e0 testsuite: i386: Restrict gcc.target/i386/fhardened-1.c etc. to Linux/GNU > > Results changed to > # reset_artifacts: > -10 > # true: > 0 > # build_abe gcc: > # FAILED > # First few build errors in logs: > # 00:11:10 make[2]: *** [/home/tcwg-build/workspace/tcwg_gnu_0/abe/snapshots/gcc.git~master/gcc/fortran/Make-lang.in:142: fortran.install-html] Error 1 > # 00:11:10 make[1]: *** [Makefile:5002: install-html-gcc] Error 1 > # 00:11:10 make: *** [Makefile:1895: do-install-html] Error 2 > Please ignore this false alarm: it was caused by a change in our build scripts. The problem should now be fixed. I've manually retriggered the validation, the status should be updated soon in patchwork. Thanks, Christophe > From > # reset_artifacts: > -10 > # true: > 0 > # build_abe gcc: > 1 > > The configuration of this build is: > CI config tcwg_gcc_build master-aarch64 > > -----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<-------------------------- > The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: > > Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_build--master-aarch64-precommit/8188/art… > Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gcc_build--master-aarch64-build/1921/artifac… > > Warning: we do not enable maintainer-mode nor automatically update > generated files, which may lead to failures if the patch modifies the > master files.

2 weeks

RE: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 4 patches in gdb: FAIL: 1 regressions: 1 progressions on arm

by Metzger, Markus T

Hello, > | 4 patches in gdb > | Patchwork URL: https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/88278 > | 343a2568d2c gdb, infrun: fix multi-threaded reverse stepping > | a4cfc3d32a8 gdb, infrun, record: move no-history notification into >normal_stop > | fc70b453e32 gdb, infrun, record: fix hang when step-over fails with no- >history > | 45548f364fd gdb, infrun, btrace: fix reverse/replay stepping at end of >execution history > | ... applied on top of baseline commit: > | 31c21e2c13d [gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.threads/access-mem-running-thread- >exit.exp with clang > >FAIL: 1 regressions: 1 progressions > >regressions.sum: > === gdb tests === > >Running gdb:gdb.threads/interrupt-while-step-over.exp ... >FAIL: gdb.threads/interrupt-while-step-over.exp: displaced-stepping=off: >iter=6: wait for stops (timeout) The log contains several FAILs at different iterations, yet this report lists a single new fail at iteration 6 IIUC. Is this test known to be flaky? I tried reproducing this on x86-64 but couldn't find any flakiness with this test. >progressions.sum: > === gdb tests === > >Running gdb:gdb.threads/detach-step-over.exp ... >FAIL: gdb.threads/detach-step-over.exp: breakpoint-condition- >evaluation=host: target-non-stop=on: non-stop=on: displaced=off: >test_detach_command: iter 2: attach (GDB internal error) What is a 'progression'? The log again contains several fails in this test. I also found the same GDB internal error in xfails.xfail on iter 3 instead of 2. I tried reproducing this on x86-64 but couldn't find any flakiness with this test. >You can find the failure logs in *.log.1.xz files in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm- >precommit/2150/artifact/artifacts/artifacts.precommit/00-sumfiles/ >The full lists of regressions and progressions as well as configure and make >commands are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm- >precommit/2150/artifact/artifacts/artifacts.precommit/notify/ >The list of [ignored] baseline and flaky failures are in > - https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm- >precommit/2150/artifact/artifacts/artifacts.precommit/sumfiles/xfails.xfail > >The configuration of this build is: >CI config tcwg_gdb_check master-arm > >-----------------8<--------------------------8<--------------------------8<----------------------- >--- >The information below can be used to reproduce a debug environment: > >Current build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm- >precommit/2150/artifact/artifacts >Reference build : https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_gdb_check--master-arm- >build/1039/artifact/artifacts > >Warning: we do not enable maintainer-mode nor automatically update >generated files, which may lead to failures if the patch modifies the >master files. If those are indeed real fails introduced by my patches, any chance I can debug this on an x86-64 system? Via simulation, perhaps? thanks, Markus. Intel Deutschland GmbH Registered Address: Am Campeon 10, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de <http://www.intel.de> Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Sharon Heck, Tiffany Doon Silva Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau Registered Office: Munich Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928

2 weeks, 1 day

[ACTIVITY] report week ending Apr 12

by Peter Maydell

Progress: * UM-2 [QEMU upstream maintainership] - looking at some late-breaking patches for various more-or-less 9.0-worthy bugs - tagged rc3; looks like we'll need an rc4, though - back to looking at cleanups and refactorings of our reset handling: + add support for a new reset type RESET_TYPE_SNAPSHOT_LOAD so we can use a new-style reset method for the kind of "load new RNG seed into memory" task we can currently only do with qemu_register_reset_nosnapshotload() or with a Machine reset method + pass the reset type into all reset phase methods, not just 'enter' + experimenting with making Machine a subclass of Device, which should let us clean up some inconsistencies (like Machine having its own reset handling that's different from everything else) -- PMM

2 weeks, 4 days

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-toolchain April 2024