linaro-toolchain

linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org

1 participants
5787 discussions

[ACTIVITY] 3-7 November 2014

by Kugan

== Progress == * Zero/sign extension elimination with widening types (TCWG-546 - 9/10) - benchmarked Spec2k and the improvements are very small - Coremark fared worse. Looked into the cases and relaxed some of the constraints. - Subsequent passes are also not optimizing some of the expected cases - Re-factored and posted an RFC patch for comments at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg00756.html * Improve block memory operations by GCC (TCWG-142 - 1/10) - Looked at the test-cases and gcc dumps == Plan == * Continue with improve block memory operations by GCC. * Continue with Zero/sign extension pass based on feedback.

11 years, 9 months

[ACTIVITY] 3-7 November 2014

by Christophe Lyon

== Progress == * GCC 4.8 and 4.9 releases (2/10) - committed both branch merges after review+checked the validation results - 4.8 needs another branch merge, to get the last errata-related backport * GCC trunk/4.9 cross-validation (1/10) - committed a couple of patches to clean the testsuite - observed a couple of regressions, no time to investigate/report * AArch64 sanitizer - got agreement in principle for a new patch, which would test the kernel headers version. * Neon intrinsics tests update (1/10) - the 2 PR I created last week are probably duplicate. - ARM posted patches to fix problems in the same area, but don't fix these PRs * cbuild2 - no progress * Misc (6/10) - calls, meetings, support == Next == - Tuesday 11th public holiday * AArch64 sanitizer * Neon intrinsics update * GCC linaro 4.8/4.9 releases * cbuild2: - analyze previous results - look at backport-test and tcwgweb scripts+logs

11 years, 9 months

[ACTIVITY] Week 45

by Renato Golin

== Progress == * Automation Framework (CARD-1378 4/8) - Moving TCWG machines to the new office - Setting up new rack, stacking boards, etc. - Setting up Junos * Buildbots (TCWG-76 2/8) - Moving buildbots to the new office - Checking libcxxabi failure, marking as XFAIL - All bots green * Background (2/8) - Code review, meetings, discussions, etc. * 1 day ill == Plan == * Continue lab migration

11 years, 9 months

GDB Build Regression

by Christopher Covington

Hi, When updating: >From git://git.linaro.org/toolchain/binutils-gdb e0f5246..336649d master -> linaro/master I now get the following build error: gdb/binutils/readelf.c: In function ‘process_mips_specific’: gdb/binutils/readelf.c:13522:3: error: format ‘%lu’ expects argument of type ‘long unsigned int’, but argument 2 has type ‘size_t’ [-Werror=format=] printf (_("<symbol index %lu exceeds number of dynamic symbols>"), i); ^ Thanks, Cov -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

11 years, 10 months

[RFC] Linaro release version number macros

by Yvan Roux

Hi, after the recent lkml thread on blacklisting some GCC versions (see below) and the issue in identifying accurately our releases, I propose to add some Linaro specific macros in our branches (i.e this patch will not go upstream) to be able to check the Linaro version at preprocessor time. It will not solve the kernel issue with 4.8.N but hopefully help if such issues happen again the the futur. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/119412 What GCC has for the moment is 3 macros __GNUC__, __GNUC_MINOR__ and __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ that are filled by parsing version number contained in BASE-VER file, for instance on our 4.9 branch: __GNUC__ = 4 __GNUC_MINOR__ = 9 __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ = 2 In our branches, the Linaro version number is in the LINARO-VERSION file and has this format: At release point : 4.9-2014.10 Head of our branch: 4.9-2014.10-1~dev I want your (the team and users) point of view on the macros we need to create from it. Here is the options I see: A - Be fully Linaro consistent: __LINARO_MAJOR__ = 4 __LINARO_MINOR__ = 9 __LINARO_YEAR__ = 2014 __LINARO_MONTH__ = 10 __LINARO_SPIN__ = 0 or N __LINARO_STATE = 0 for release or 1 for dev B - Only give information that are not in the __GNUC* macros: __LINARO_YEAR__ = 2014 __LINARO_MONTH__ = 10 __LINARO_SPIN__ = 0 or N __LINARO_STATE = 0 for release or 1 for dev C - Be more concise: __LINARO_VERSION__ = 201410 __LINARO_SPIN__ = 0 or N __LINARO_STATE = 0 for release or 1 for dev D - Even more: __LINARO_VERSION__ = 201410N (with N the spin number) __LINARO_STATE = 0 for release or 1 for dev E - Hardcore conciseness: __LINARO__ = 201410NM (N = SPIN M = state) F - One of the previous ones without STATE information. G - One of the previous ones without SPIN information. Do you think it is something we need ? Do we already have that kind of macros in some products (binutils, gdb, glibc, ...) ? What option do you prefer ? My own feeling is that C+F is sufficient as STATE information is useless for releases and I don't think dev builds checking have to be used in another project. But SPIN information can be useful has we're doing respin because an outstanding issue/improvement has to be fixed/added to the current release, thus it is the kind of thing you want to check if the version of the compiler you are using contains. Thanks, Yvan

11 years, 10 months

Will this ARM64 erratum patch be backported to this month's Linaro GCC 4.9 release?

by Panshilin (Peter)

Dear all concerned: ARM has reported it's 53's bug:AArch64 multiply-accumulate instruction might produce incorrect result and developed the patch descriped below. will the patch be backported to Linaro 4.9 this month's release. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2014-10/msg00335.html thanks Peter

11 years, 10 months

[ACTIVITY] 27th - 31st October

by Bernie Ogden

cbuild2 benchmarking - TCWG-360 [8/10] * Scripts build SPEC 2006 tools on x86_64 and arm, not yet on AArch64 * Scripts cross-build for x86 to arm and aarch64 * Cross-built binaries refuse to run Meetings/mail/etc - [2/10] =Plan= cbuild2 benchmarking * Make cross-built binaries run, collect reports * Build tools for AArch64 (lower priority) libm exerising * Work through list of benchmarks, see what I find

11 years, 10 months

[ACTIVITY] 27 - 31 October 2014

by Venkataramanan Kumar

= Progress == * TCWG-544 - Investigate core mark performance with both at -O3 with LTO + PGO (6/10) * Misc [3/10] emails, linaro and AMD meetings and 1-1 with inline manger. 1-1 with christophe. * Tried to reproduce Bug 63653 (1/10) == Plan == * Continue core mark performance with both at -O3 with LTO + PGO. * Continue Bugfix 63653

11 years, 10 months

[ACTIVITY] 27 - 31 October 2014

by Will Newton

== Progress == * Holiday on Monday (2/10) * Upstream work (4/10, CARD-341) - Patch review - Look into malloc hooks issue - Understand Cortex-A53 ld patch - Applied patches * Investigate libm optimization opportunities and benchmarks (2/10) * Email, meetings, review, etc. (2/10) == Issues == * None == Plan == * Follow up single thread optimization discussions * Finish review doc -- Will Newton Toolchain Working Group, Linaro

11 years, 10 months

[ACTIVITY] 27 - 31 October 2014

by Omair Javaid

== Progress == GDB Tracepoints/Fast Tracepoints support on arm [TCWG-480] [3/10] -- Investigate arm hardware debugging capabilities in linux kernel. ARM/AArch64 GDB testsuite failures investigation [TCWG-507] [4/10] Trying out patches that add support for gdbserver catch vfork/fork [TCWG-507] [2/10] Miscellaneous [1/10] -- Meetings, Emails etc -- Annual Review 2014 == Plan == Monday/Tuesday Public Holidays in Pakistan. Fix watchpoints-reuse-slot tests for arm somehow to allow skipping unsupported tests Also investigate the same on AArch64. [TCWG-507] Re-submit some hanging patches after a bit of rework to grab attention.

11 years, 10 months

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-toolchain