Hi Ken. In follow up to our 1-on-1 yesterday, here's what I'd like done next.
The goal is to use OE Core as a release test suite. The releases are
tarballs so we can keep the current recipe format and punt bzr support
for later. The first step is to be able to reliably build a release
in the cloud or validation lab.
In all cases keep the other teams in mind. Much of this is related to
Validation. Platform will be involved later. Ping them early.
Kernel:
We're starting with GCC and need a kernel to supply headers and to
boot some type of ARMv7 image. I don't want a linux-linaro recipe as
people will use it and it's too early for that.
Find a kernel, preferably from OE Core, that is recent, ARMv7, >= 512
MB RAM, and works well with qemu-linaro. Prefer vexpress-a9, else
OMAP?
Talking:
Say Hi to Validation re: EC2 and plans
Say Hi to the ARM landing team re: vexpress upstream support
Say Hi to Beth Flanagan re: Yocto's existing auto builders and any hints
Cloud builds:
Find out who is already doing OE builds in the cloud and how
Run a build locally and time
Push ~/downloads into the cloud, build, and time[1]
Figure how much this build will cost in dollars
[1] c1.xlarge might be best. Builds are normally I/O bound and the
cloud is I/O poor. Put /tmp and other chunks in a tmpfs? EC2 rounds
up to the nearest hour as well.
If the cloud is too expensive then we'll get a machine installed.
S3 for storage:
(only proceed if affordable)
Use S3 for storing the input tarballs
Use S3 either as a pre-mirror by serving over HTTP, or use s3cmd to
sync down the tarballs before starting the build
Scripting:
Re-use existing scripts if feasible. Integrate with LAVA providing we
can run exactly the same scripts on a laptop for debugging.
Script the bitbake, OE meta layer, and Linaro meta layer setup.
Script the configuration including setting the release tarball URL and
GCC preferred version.
Script the build and result capture, especially the log, any ICEs, and
the final sizes
Future:
OE can grab a repository seed then update based on that. Check if the
bzr backend supports this. If so, play with seeding to do tip builds.
Let me know what you think then we'll spawn blueprints. Let's keep an
eye on this as it's sounding expensive.
-- Michael
Hi Ken, Thiago. Could you try your hand at writing cards for the
OpenEmbedded Core meta-layer and GDB and Android? Here are some past
cards:
https://linaro-public.papyrs.com/TCWG2011-GCC-O3https://linaro-public.papyrs.com/TCWG2011-OPENOCD-SUPPORThttps://linaro-public.papyrs.com/TCWG2011-WINDOWS-TOOLCHAIN
They cover:
* An introduction
* The why/advantages
* The what/features
* The how/steps
* Dependencies
* Acceptance criteria (which is a post-tense version of the body)
A card should cover three calendar months. Check the unknowns - we
need to investigate the acceptance criteria and make sure there is no
unexpected side work in there.
We use roadmap cards as the highest level of organising our work.
Cards are the interface between working groups and the TSC and sit at
the project brief / deep but concise level.
Draft them on the wiki (cf https://wiki.linaro.org/KenWerner/Sandbox)
and we'll go from there.
-- Michael
== Issues ==
It would be nice to have perf installed on the porter boxes in the
canonical data center as well if we are allowed to run benchmarks
there. Filed RT request.
==Progress===
* Understood STB_GNU_UNIQUE_NOTE - Helped fix a problem with compiz
crashing but then it was a very nice testcase to investigate the
toolchain issue with. Thanks Alexandros.
* Merged pending patches.
* ABI fix
* Fix for ICE - LP bug 942307
* Off sick on Monday.
* Did some work to improve code generation for addressing modes in VFP
registers.
* Did some work in setting up SPEC2k for running hc partitioning
patches. Still needs to be completed.
=== Plans ===
* Ping configure.ac changes.
* Complete pending benchmark run with hc partitioning and look at
results with hc partitioning and run things. Was unable to run the vfp
benchmarks today as ex.seabright.co.nz was down.
* Resurrect partial-partial PRE
Absences.
* 1 week holiday sometime before that - to be booked.
* Linaro Connect Q2.12 - May 28 - June 1 - travel booked - hotel to be booked.
Hi Ken. This month's release is next week. Let's be aggressive and
see if we can use your meta-linaro layer to check the source release.
I want to use tcserver01 in the validation lab instead of the cloud
until we know how much it costs. I've added you an account and done a
test build to check that the dependencies are there. There's a shared
directory in /home/shared that includes downloads and a sstate-cache.
The machine seems fast enough for the job.
The tarball should be ready around Tuesday next week. Once ready,
could you mix it in with the meta-linaro layer, do a build, boot the
rootfs in qemu, and document as you go? Anything past that is
welcome.
It's all manual but a nice proof of concept. Can we check the binary
build as well?
-- Michael
Current Milestones:
|| || Planned || Estimate || Actual ||
||cp15-rework || 2012-01-06 || 2012-??-?? || ||
(new blueprints & reestimate for this one pending still; will try to
do this early next week)
Historical Milestones:
||a15-usermode-support || 2011-11-10 || 2011-11-10 || 2011-10-27 ||
||upstream-omap3-cleanup || 2011-11-10 || 2011-12-15 || 2011-12-12 ||
||initial-a15-system-model || 2012-01-27 || 2012-01-27 || 2012-01-17 ||
||qemu-kvm-getting-started || 2012-03-04?|| 2012-03-04?|| 2012-02-01 ||
== cp15-rework ==
* converted cp15 crn={6,7,9}, still TODO just crn={0,1}. These take
longer than I was expecting because to find some useful compromise
between QEMU's previous (usually broken) behaviour and reality I
have to cross reference half a dozen different TRMs and several
revisions of the ARM ARM.
== other ==
* getting qemu-linaro into shape for next week's release:
applying patches, writing changelog, etc
* patch review for more exynos4 devices
* tracked down a regression in the spitz (zaurus) model,
sent patch
* first pass comments on blueprints for this quarter
* investigating LP:947888 (gpg crashes under qemu)
-- PMM
Hi Alexandros,
Could you use the linaro-toolchain list for stuff like this please?
You're more likely to find somebody who knows the answer that way.
I'm pretty sure the problem is not the compiler because, as far as I can
see, both architectures' compilers emit ".weak" directives. If there is
a problem, I'd say it's in the linker.
Your test case gives two different addresses on Lucid x86, and on ARM
(so you say, I've not tested it), but the same address twice on Precise.
This is a surprising result. *I* would have expected that static values
in different dlopen'd libraries would not be unified, but apparently
they are ... somtimes.
I'm afraid I don't really have any insight here. :(
Anyway, regardless of whether one is correct, or not, I'd suggest *not*
relying on this behaviour - it's clearly not portable. I say leave it at
arm's length in production software for a few years.
Andrew
On 06/03/12 14:27, Alexandros Frantzis wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 09:51:01AM +0800, Sam Spilsbury wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Alexandros Frantzis
>> <alexandros.frantzis(a)linaro.org> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> this is an update on my progress with the updated compiz branches.
>>>
>>> I have been trying to run our update compiz branches
>>> (compiz-*/linaro-gles2-update) on ARM (precise armhf), but I have stumbled onto
>>> the same issue Marc reported some days ago. In particular, I get:
>>>
>>> /usr/bin/compiz (core) - Fatal: Private index value "15CompositeWindow_index_4" already stored in screen.
>>> /usr/bin/compiz (core) - Fatal: Private index value "15CompositeScreen_index_4" already stored in screen.
>>>
>>> and then a segfault when I try to run compiz.
>>>
>>> Note that I *don't* have this problem when running on x86_64 precise.
>>>
>>> The issue can be recreated with:
>>>
>>> $ compiz composite opengl
>>>
>>> I added some debugging messages to pluginclasshandler.h to get a better
>>> feeling of what is going on, and ran on both my desktop and on ARM.
>>> This is the output near the point when GLScreen get initialized:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> compiz (core) - Info: get(): mIndex.initiated for "8GLScreen_index_4" : 0
>>> compiz (core) - Info: initializeIndex(): Initializining index value "8GLScreen_index_4"
>>> compiz (core) - Info: initializeIndex(): Private index value added for "8GLScreen_index_4"
>>> compiz (core) - Info: getInstance(): Get instance for "8GLScreen_index_4"
>>> compiz (core) - Info: getInstance(): Spawning new class for "8GLScreen_index_4"
>>> compiz (core) - Info: ctor(): mIndex.initiated for "8GLScreen_index_4" : 1
>>> compiz (core) - Info: ctor(): Increasing reference count for "8GLScreen_index_4": 1
>>>
>>> --- x86_64 ---
>>> compiz (core) - Info: get(): mIndex.initiated for "15CompositeScreen_index_4" : 1
>>> --- armhf ---
>>> compiz (core) - Info: get(): mIndex.initiated for "15CompositeScreen_index_4" : 0
>>> compiz (core) - Info: initializeIndex(): Initializining index value "15CompositeScreen_index_4"
>>> compiz (core) - Fatal: initializeIndex(): Private index value "15CompositeScreen_index_4" already stored in screen.
>>
>> After the composite plugin loads and mIndex.initiated is set to 1,
>> place a watchpoint on mIndex.initiated (it should be a separate
>> template instantiation for each different class) and check if it
>> changes, or check if we are reading mIndex.initiated from a different
>> address, and if so, check the addresses of this for each constructor
>> and destructor being called. (could be a compiler bug, I've hit these
>> on this part of the code before).
>>
>>> -------------
>>>
>>> In the armhf case, CompositeScreen is erroneously considered not
>>> initialized, and is initialiazed again, therefore messing up the plugin system.
>>>
>>> I am trying to figure out if this is a manifestation of some kind of memory
>>> corruption that doesn't affect us on x86_64 for whatever reason (alignment,
>>> integer size etc), or something completely different.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alexandros
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sam Spilsbury
>>
>
> Hi all,
>
> (I have also added Michael, Andrew and Ulrich from the Linaro toolchain group
> to the recipients. Hi!)
>
> Checking the addresses, as Sam suggested, I found that there are two different
> PluginClassHandler<CompositeScreen, CompScreen, 4>::mIndex and
> PluginClassHandler<CompositeWindow, CompWindow, 4>::mIndex objects.
>
> After a bit of investigation, objdump gave an explanation:
>
> objdump -t /usr/lib/compiz/libcomposite.so | c++filt | grep mIndex
>
> -- x86_64 --
> 0000000000277a80 u O .bss 0000000000000010 PluginClassHandler<CompositeWindow, CompWindow, 4>::mIndex
> 0000000000277a70 u O .bss 0000000000000010 PluginClassHandler<CompositeScreen, CompScreen, 4>::mIndex
> -- armhf --
> 00065648 w O .bss 00000010 PluginClassHandler<CompositeWindow, CompWindow, 4>::mIndex
> 00065658 w O .bss 00000010 PluginClassHandler<CompositeScreen, CompScreen, 4>::mIndex
> ------------
>
> And the same kind of output for libopengl.so
>
> On x86_64 the symbols are marked 'u': 'unique global', whereas on armhf
> they are marked 'w': 'weak'. This seems to be causing our troubles.
>
> I have produced a small test case for this:
>
> http://people.linaro.org/~afrantzis/cpp_unique_global.tar.gz
>
> Building and running 'LD_LIBRARY_PATH=. ./main' on x86_64 prints out f1 and f2
> with the same address, whereas on armhf the addresses are different (i.e. two
> different objects). On x86_64 the symbol A<int>::a is 'u', on armhf it is 'w'.
>
> For completeness, when running without templates (edit a.h to change) the two
> printed addresses are different on both x86_64 and armhf. Also A::a is 'g':
> 'normal global' for both.
>
> Michael, Andrew, Ulrich can you please give us some insight into the situation?
> Does this seem like a compiler or linker bug on ARM, or is the code depending
> on undefined behavior, or something different? I have pasted the used g++
> versions at the end of the email.
>
> Thanks,
> Alexandros
>
> --- g++ x86_64 --
> Using built-in specs.
> COLLECT_GCC=g++
> COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.6/lto-wrapper
> Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
> Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu2' --with-bugurl=file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.6/README.Bugs --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++,go --prefix=/usr --program-suffix=-4.6 --enable-shared --enable-linker-build-id --with-system-zlib --libexecdir=/usr/lib --without-included-gettext --enable-threads=posix --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.6 --libdir=/usr/lib --enable-nls --with-sysroot=/ --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-libstdcxx-debug --enable-libstdcxx-time=yes --enable-plugin --enable-objc-gc --disable-werror --with-arch-32=i686 --with-tune=generic --enable-checking=release --build=x86_64-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-linux-gnu
> Thread model: posix
> gcc version 4.6.3 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu2)
>
> --- g++ armhf --
> Using built-in specs.
> COLLECT_GCC=g++
> COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/arm-linux-gnueabihf/4.6/lto-wrapper
> Target: arm-linux-gnueabihf
> Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu2' --with-bugurl=file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.6/README.Bugs --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++ --prefix=/usr --program-suffix=-4.6 --enable-shared --enable-linker-build-id --with-system-zlib --libexecdir=/usr/lib --without-included-gettext --enable-threads=posix --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.6 --libdir=/usr/lib --enable-nls --with-sysroot=/ --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-libstdcxx-debug --enable-libstdcxx-time=yes --enable-plugin --enable-objc-gc --enable-multilib --disable-sjlj-exceptions --with-arch=armv7-a --with-float=hard --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 --with-mode=thumb --disable-werror --enable-checking=release --build=arm-linux-gnueabihf --host=arm-linux-gnueabihf --target=arm-linux-gnueabihf
> Thread model: posix
> gcc version 4.6.3 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu2)
>
Hi!
* Bug reports
Made an effort clean up among the remaining not-triaged bug. Michael will
help out with 941676, where the failure is on power-pc.
* Wiki
Created a wiki page for running benchmarks in cbuild:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Benchmarks/RunningBenchmark…
* V8
Build system has changed in V8 from SCones to GYP. With GYP I can pass the
normal flags like CXXFLAGS to control the build, so this looks like a good
change.
I have created a cbuild make file, patterned after the other benchmark make
files.
Working on x86 sofar, will go for arm next week. Will also add a parser for
the results.
Regards
Åsa
== GCC ==
* Checked patch to generate usat/ssat instructions into
Linaro GCC 4.6 and 4.7.
* Submitted (first part of) fwprop-subreg patch for mainline.
* Submitted Ira's vectorizer patches for mainline.
* Ongoing work on improving end-of-loop value computation.
* Patch review week.
== Misc ==
* On leave 3/9 - 3/14.
Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Best Regards
Ulrich Weigand
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand | Phone: +49-7031/16-3727
STSM, GNU compiler and toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell/B.E.
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Martin Jetter | Geschäftsführung: Dirk
Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen | Registergericht: Amtsgericht
Stuttgart, HRB 243294
Hi
Updated sysroots for binary toolchain are available at [1]. This time I
split -dev and -dbg sysroots so as long as dbgsym are not needed less
disk space is used.
Please take a look at them and report any issues.
1. http://people.linaro.org/~hrw/generic-linux/sysroots/20120301/
Hello,
My name is Jiandong Zheng and am working on a few ARM specific projects.
I have been using Linaro toolchain coming with Ubuntu to do Cortext-A9
building. I also need to maintain code for old ARM11 SoC so that Linaro
toolchain is my preference and it did the job well back in Maverick days
if I remember correctly.
However, in Precise, I have troubles running this ARM11 u-boot and
kernel built with Linaro toolchain, eventually I found that my old gcc
4.3.2 toolchain can still build workable u-boot and kernel so that
Linaro toolchain (gcc 4.6.2) seems the problem. I understand that
Linaro's focus has been ARMv7 or above but I am wondering if its
toolchain can still be used for older ARM architectures.
Thanks,
JD
