- linaro-toolchain - lists.linaro.org

why ld.so in arm-linux-gnueabihf- toolchains search so many paths ?

by Barry Song

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

9 years, 9 months

3
3
0 0

Lost upstream patch in merge from gcc-5-branch to linaro/gcc-5-branch

by Robert Schiele

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

9 years, 9 months

2
1
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 23rd - 27th November

by Bernie Ogden

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

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 23 - 27 November 2015

by Yao Qi

# Progress # * Fix timeout in random-signal.exp. TCWG-424. Ongoing. [4/10] I know the cause of the problem but can't figure out why it can happen. Can only reproduce the fail in every 20~30 runs. * TCWG-423, support gnu vector in inferior call in AArch64 GDB. Done. [1/10] * Build native ARM and AArch64 GDB in C++. No regression in test. Done. TCWG-446. Done. [1/10]. * Fix GDB internal error in gdb.thread/watchpoint-fork.exp on AArch64. [2/10] * Upstream patches review [2/10] ** Review patches on arm gdbserver software single step V3. Some patches are approved, but V4 is also needed for the rest. ** Review all-stop on non-stop patches. ** Discuss whether we need single step in fast tracepoint. Ongoing. # Plan # * One day off on Monday. * Understand ST's jtag probe and help them to make use of multi-arch in GDB. * Look into timeout in random-signal.exp. * TCWG-156, GDB test parity between AArch64 and X86_64. * TCWG-460, follow up on the AArch64 GDBserver multi-arch work. -- Yao

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 23 - 27 November 2015

by Kugan

== Progress == - tree re-assoc regression (2/10) - Found a test-case to reproduce it. - working on a patch - LuaJIT issue (6/10) * Setup luajit on aarch64 and tried it * tried to reproduce nginx issue with various configs without success - LTO (1/10) * aarch64 bootstrap * ran into an uninit warning issues looking into it - Misc (1/10) * gcc/bug list == Plan == * tree re-assoc * LTO

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY]

by Renato Golin

== Progress == * Support (6/10) - Trying to add ADRL support in the assembler: http://llvm.org/PR24350 * Buildbots (1/10) - Some breakages, nothing serious * Background (3/10) - Code review, meetings, discussions, general support, etc. - Working on 2016's plan

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] Week 47

by Yvan Roux

== Progress == o Linaro GCC (4/10) * Found and backported missing dependencies * More backports o Upstream work (4/10) * Reviewed some patches * Tried to reproduced an LRA issue (fixed in the meantime) * Continue on sanitizing gfortran testsuite o Misc (2/10) * Various meetings == Plan == o Continue on-going tasks

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 23 - 27 November 2015

by Prathamesh Kulkarni

== This Week == * Target conversion to hook (2/10) - Completed build and test for ASM_FORMAT_PRIVATE_NAME, ASM_LABEL_OUTPUT_LABEL to hook - Converted ASM_OUTPUT_LABEL_REF to hook * Holidays (8/10) - 3 days leave and public holiday (Guru nanak Jayanti) == Next Week == - Send updated patch upstream for tcwg-72 - LTO benchmarking with SPEC for correctness on arm and aarch64 - Target hook conversion

9 years, 9 months

1
1
0 0

[Weekly] 23-27 November 2015

by Michael Collison

== This week == * TCWG-317 - Exploit wide add operations when appropriate for Aarch32 (4/10) - Determined that big endian failure is unrelated to vaddw. - Bug filed upstream: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68532 - Sent modified patch upstream for approval with caveat related to bugzilla 68532 * TCWG-369 - Exploit wide add operations when appropriate for Aarch64 (1/10) - Code checked in upstream. TCWG-369 is complete * Misc (1/10) - Conference calls * USA Thanksgiving Holiday (4/10) == Next week == * TCWG-316 - Additional investigation * TCWG-317 - Respond to upstream feedback * Bugzilla 68532 - Investigation

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

[ANNOUNCE] Linaro Binary Toolchain Release GCC 5.2 2015.11

by Ryan Arnold

The Linaro Toolchain Working Group is pleased to announce the availability of the Linaro Stable Binary Toolchain GCC 5.2-2015.11 Release Archives. http://releases.linaro.org/components/toolchain/binaries/5.2-2015.11/ http://releases.linaro.org/components/toolchain/gcc-linaro/5.2-2015.11/ These archives provide cross-toolchain executables (compiler, debugger, linker, etc.) and shared libraries (libstdc++, libc, etc.) that target ARM or Aarch64 GNU/Linux and bare-metal environments. The cross-toolchain binaries execute on a Linux or MS Windows (under mingw32) host operating-system. Please evaluate this release-candidate for correctness. Linaro will shortly spin the Linaro GCC 5.2-2015.11 release if this release-candidate passes stakeholder validation. For bugs related to this release-candidate please email linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org or file a bug at https://bugs.linaro.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Linux%20Binary%20toolchain NEWS * GCC 5.2 2015.11 The Linaro GCC 5.2 2015.11 binary toolchain release is built from the Linaro GCC-5.2-2015.11 release source archive. The Linaro GCC-5.2-2015.11 release source archive is derived from the same sources as the Linaro GCC-5.2-2015.10 snapshot source archive. * GCC 5.2 2015.11-rc1 The Linaro GCC 5.2 2015.11-rc1 binary toolchain release-candidate is built from the Linaro GCC-5.2-2015.11 release-candidate source archive. The Linaro GCC-5.2-2015.11-rc1 release-candidate source archive is derived from the same sources as the Linaro GCC-5.2-2015.10 snapshot source archive. -- Ryan S. Arnold Linaro Toolchain Working Group - Engineering Manager www.linaro.org

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

problems in ABE's support for manifest files and multilibs

by Fred Peterson

Hello, I am trying to create gcc 4.9.x toolchains for ARM v7 and v8 based on Linaro's sources. At first Linaro's 4.9-2015.05 binary release looked suitable, but then one of my colleagues noticed that that it had an incompatibility with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6. Linaro has decided not to fix this incompatibility (see https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1869 ). So, I tried to work around that bug by rebuilding the toolchains myself on RHEL6 using Linaro's new ABE script. I initially tried to recreate the builds by using ABE's --manifest <manifest_file> command line option. I experienced problems with that, though, including it building gcc version 6.x instead of 4.9.x. I eventually gave up on that approach. Instead, I extracted the required branches and revisions from the manifest files and put them into ABE command line options, like this: abe.sh --target aarch64-elf --build all --parallel --dump --tarball --release fsl-2015.11.16 --set libc=newlib binutils=binutils-gdb.git~linaro_binutils-2_24-branch@a93e252ee5250dba831e54f98336b40c7210dac7 gcc=gcc-linaro-4.9-2015.05 gmp=5.1.3 gdb=binutils-gdb.git~gdb-7.10-branch@ef5fa52ac9ab68b505b52acb2d2068b366ba8bf2 mpfr=3.1.2 mpc=1.0.1 newlib=newlib.git~linaro_newlib-branch@136b66e404df41435bdec4630c0787b0bc7e7580 abe.sh --target aarch64-linux-gnu --build all --parallel --dump --tarball --release fsl-2015.11.16 --set libc=glibc binutils=binutils-gdb.git~linaro_binutils-2_24-branch@a93e252ee5250dba831e54f98336b40c7210dac7 gcc=gcc-linaro-4.9-2015.05 gmp=5.1.3 gdb=binutils-gdb.git~gdb-7.10-branch@ef5fa52ac9ab68b505b52acb2d2068b366ba8bf2 mpfr=3.1.2 mpc=1.0.1 glibc=glibc-linaro-2.20-2014.11.tar.xz abe.sh --target arm-eabi --build all --parallel --dump --tarball --release fsl-2015.11.16 --set libc=newlib binutils=binutils-gdb.git~linaro_binutils-2_24-branch@a93e252ee5250dba831e54f98336b40c7210dac7 gcc=gcc-linaro-4.9-2015.05 gmp=5.1.3 gdb=binutils-gdb.git~gdb-7.10-branch@ef5fa52ac9ab68b505b52acb2d2068b366ba8bf2 mpfr=3.1.2 mpc=1.0.1 newlib=newlib.git~linaro_newlib-branch@136b66e404df41435bdec4630c0787b0bc7e7580 abe.sh --target arm-linux-gnueabihf --build all --parallel --dump --tarball --release fsl-2015.11.16 --set libc=glibc binutils=binutils-gdb.git~linaro_binutils-2_24-branch@a93e252ee5250dba831e54f98336b40c7210dac7 gcc=gcc-linaro-4.9-2015.05 gmp=5.1.3 gdb=binutils-gdb.git~gdb-7.10-branch@ef5fa52ac9ab68b505b52acb2d2068b366ba8bf2 mpfr=3.1.2 mpc=1.0.1 glibc=glibc-linaro-2.20-2014.11.tar.xz That worked, and the resulting toolchains ran without error under RHEL6. Note that I deliberately chose to switch to glibc in the *-linux-* toolchains, whereas the manifest files had them using eglibc. At least one serious problem remained. The toolchains supported different multilibs than previous releases. For example, arm-eabi-gcc reported that it supported only three sets of libraries: $ arm-eabi-gcc -print-multi-lib .; thumb;@mthumb fpu;@mfloat-abi=hard Linaro's 2015.05 build of the toolchain gives the same output. However, previous releases of this toolchain supported a much larger set of multilibs. A build from 2014.08 reports: $ arm-none-eabi-gcc --print-multi-lib .; thumb;@mthumb v7-a;@march=armv7-a v7ve;@march=armv7ve v8-a;@march=armv8-a v7-a/fpv3/softfp;@march=armv7-a@mfpu=vfpv3-d16@mfloat-abi=softfp v7-a/fpv3/hard;@march=armv7-a@mfpu=vfpv3-d16@mfloat-abi=hard v7-a/simdv1/softfp;@march=armv7-a@mfpu=neon@mfloat-abi=softfp v7-a/simdv1/hard;@march=armv7-a@mfpu=neon@mfloat-abi=hard v7ve/fpv4/softfp;@march=armv7ve@mfpu=vfpv4-d16@mfloat-abi=softfp v7ve/fpv4/hard;@march=armv7ve@mfpu=vfpv4-d16@mfloat-abi=hard v7ve/simdvfpv4/softfp;@march=armv7ve@mfpu=neon-vfpv4@mfloat-abi=softfp v7ve/simdvfpv4/hard;@march=armv7ve@mfpu=neon-vfpv4@mfloat-abi=hard v8-a/simdv8/softfp;@march=armv8-a@mfpu=neon-fp-armv8@mfloat-abi=softfp v8-a/simdv8/hard;@march=armv8-a@mfpu=neon-fp-armv8@mfloat-abi=hard thumb/v7-a;@mthumb@march=armv7-a thumb/v7ve;@mthumb@march=armv7ve thumb/v8-a;@mthumb@march=armv8-a thumb/v7-a/fpv3/softfp;@mthumb@march=armv7-a@mfpu=vfpv3-d16@mfloat-abi=softfp thumb/v7-a/fpv3/hard;@mthumb@march=armv7-a@mfpu=vfpv3-d16@mfloat-abi=hard thumb/v7-a/simdv1/softfp;@mthumb@march=armv7-a@mfpu=neon@mfloat-abi=softfp thumb/v7-a/simdv1/hard;@mthumb@march=armv7-a@mfpu=neon@mfloat-abi=hard thumb/v7ve/fpv4/softfp;@mthumb@march=armv7ve@mfpu=vfpv4-d16@mfloat-abi=softfp thumb/v7ve/fpv4/hard;@mthumb@march=armv7ve@mfpu=vfpv4-d16@mfloat-abi=hard thumb/v7ve/simdvfpv4/softfp;@mthumb@march=armv7ve@mfpu=neon-vfpv4@mfloat-abi=softfp thumb/v7ve/simdvfpv4/hard;@mthumb@march=armv7ve@mfpu=neon-vfpv4@mfloat-abi=hard thumb/v8-a/simdv8/softfp;@mthumb@march=armv8-a@mfpu=neon-fp-armv8@mfloat-abi=softfp thumb/v8-a/simdv8/hard;@mthumb@march=armv8-a@mfpu=neon-fp-armv8@mfloat-abi=hard I found that the file that encodes this older set of multilib mappings is gcc-linaro-4.9-2015.05/gcc/config/arm/t-aprofile. Based on some comments in gcc-linaro-4.9-2015.05/gcc/config.gcc, I guessed that ABE should have configured gcc with "--with-multilib-list=aprofile", and without "--with-arch=armv7-a" or "--with-fpu=vfpv3-d16". I quickly hacked these changes into abe/config/gcc.conf like this: diff --git a/config/gcc.conf b/config/gcc.conf index 19c44ca..4cc5eaf --- a/config/gcc.conf +++ b/config/gcc.conf @@ -111,9 +111,9 @@ if test x"${build}" != x"${target}"; then default_configure_flags="${default_configure_flags} --with-tune=cortex-a9" fi if test x"${override_arch}" = x -a x"${override_cpu}" = x; then - default_configure_flags="${default_configure_flags} --with-arch=armv7-a" + default_configure_flags="${default_configure_flags}" fi - default_configure_flags="${default_configure_flags} --enable-threads=no --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 --enable-multilib --disable-multiarch" + default_configure_flags="${default_configure_flags} --enable-threads=no --with-multilib-list=aprofile --enable-multilib --disable-multiarch" languages="c,c++,lto" ;; aarch64*-*elf) After rebuilding the toolchain, I found it had the desired older set of multilibs. I hope that this mail will help anyone who experiences similar problems. I have filed a bug report for the multilib issue. See https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1920 . While validating the toolchains, dejagnu reports a few unexpected failures. Does the TCWG publish their validation results anywhere for comparison? That would be very helpful. Thanks, Fred Peterson Freescale Developer Tools

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 16-20 November 2015

by Kugan

== Progress == - Linaro bug 1900 (4/10) * Committed fix to trunk * Will propose back-port to branches after a week - Widening pass (TCWG-547) - 4/10 * Address latest review comments * Posted updated patch to the list - Misc (2/10) * Looked at LuaJIT issue * gcc/bug list == Plan == * LuaJIT * LTO

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] Week 46

by Yvan Roux

== Progress == o Valfidation and Infra (2/10) * Some fixes in our release script * look at refactoring our publishing snapshot job o Linaro GCC (4/10) * Start backports for 2015.12 * Tracking dependencies o Upstream work (1/10) * Continue on sanitizing gfortran testsuite o Misc (3/10) * Various meetings * Internal support == Plan == o Continue on-going tasks

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 16th - 20th November

by Bernie Ogden

Controlled image builds - TCWG-360 [2/10] * A few more test/debug cycles with ci-loop-built image Jenkins benchmarking job - TCWG-348 [3/10] * YAML-ised Jenkins job, more test/debug cycles Juno crashdump [1/10] * Got a usable dump (via alt-sysrq-c) with latest patches plus some fiddling SPEC-on-Android [1/10] * Looked at Qian's work to date, didn't come up with any bright ideas Misc [3/10] =Plan= Review security with shared uinstance/main instance code Expose more data, benchmarks to bundles Continue debug/test of Jenkins job Create bootable image for at least 1 target, or know what the problems are Write up noise control report (if time) Set Juno off, try to get a dump of my crash Probably more support for SPEC-on-Android =Absences= 'ARM Day' next Monday (30th)

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

[Weekly] 16-20 November 2015

by Michael Collison

== This week == * TCWG-317 - Exploit wide add operations when appropriate for Aarch32 (5/10) - Blocked as I have not yet determined why the pattern fails on big endian targets * TCWG-369 - Exploit wide add operations when appropriate for Aarch64 (1/10) - Modified code based on minor code style comments * TCWG-316 - Exploit vector multiply by scalar instructions (3/10) - Discovered relevant previous RFC: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-09/msg00061.html - Coded subset of vector patterns - Debugging combine phase to determine why patterns are not being utilized * Misc (1/10) - Conference calls == Next week == - TCWG-369 - Submit modified patch upstream for final approval - TCWG-316 - Determine if rtl patterns can be used by combine - TCWG-317 - Need feedback - USA Thanksgiving Holidays (November 26-27)

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 16th-20th November 2015

by Prathamesh Kulkarni

== This Week == * TCWG-72 (2/10) - Rebased patch - Fixed ICE for x86-gcc with -m32 following Jim's suggestions. * Target hook conversion (6/10) - Converted ASM_FORMAT_PRIVATE_NAME, ASM_LABEL_OUTPUT_LABEL, ASM_OUTPUT_LABELREF to hook * TCWG-319 (1/10) - Benchmark jobs for fp in progress on a53, a57. * Misc (1/10) - Meetings == Next Week == - Test and send updated patch upstream for tcwg-72 - TCWG-319 benchmarking on cortex-a15 - Holidays from 23-25th November (Mon-Wed).

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY]

by Renato Golin

== Progress == * Buildbots (1/10) - Bisecting breakages, testing ASAN patches * Release (1/10) - Testing 3.7.1-RC1, all green * Benchmarks (3/10) - Updating some benchmarks results, running EEMBC on HiKey - Investigating old performance reports * Background (5/10) - Code review, meetings, discussions, general support, etc. - Bootstrapping laptop - EuroLLVM, AOSP meetings - Jira farming

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 16-20 November 2015

by Yao Qi

# Progress # * TCWG-332, done. [1/10] Fix GDB bug on stepping over breakpoint on ARM. Patch is pushed in. * TCWG-423, patches are posted. [5/10]. Support gnu vector in inferior call in AArch64 GDB. Also correctly handle HVA (homogeneous vector aggregate) in inferior call. * TCWG-433, done. [2/10] All memory issues found by -fsanitize=address in GDB are fixed. * TCWG-447, done. [1/10] Fix GDB mainline build warnings and errors in C++ mode on ARM and AArch64. * Discussion on the approach of building GDB in C++. Need to test GDB built in C++ on both ARM and AArch64, from my side. [1/10] # Plan # * Understand ST's jtag probe and help them to make use of multi-arch in GDB. * Fix GDB internal error in gdb.thread/watchpoint-fork.exp on AArch64. * TCWG-156, GDB test parity between AArch64 and X86_64. -- Yao

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 16-20 November 2015

by Christophe Lyon

== Progress == * Validation (6/10) - a few improvements in the validations using the ST compute farm - thinking about appropriate ways of sharing validation reports with the GCC community without flooding gcc-testresults - moved results comparison scripts to a dedicated repo and updated Jenkins jobs accordingly * GCC (1/10) - bug #1869 / glibc dependency on RHEL6 proof of concept to force use of old memcpy but it will be much safer to build the toolchain in a suitable container with the right distro * Misc (conf calls, meetings, emails, ...) (3/10) - patches and backports reviews == Next == * Validation - continue preparation of switch, as dev-01 is now back - improve reporting * GCC: - check Neon tests cleanup - bug #1869 - look at how to send valuable reports to gcc-regression

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

ETA for glibc-linaro 2.22 ?

by Koen Kooi

Hi, We're currently running into issues with the OE builds due to OE-core having moved to 2.22. So what's the plan for glibc-linaro 2.22? -- Koen Kooi Builds and Baselines | Release Manager Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

Configuration question

by Bill Fischofer

Hi, This question has arisen in the ODP project and the thought is that a 'best practices' answer would be more likely to be found on this list. We have a component that wants to make use of specialized instructions for performing CRC and/or AES computations and was wondering what is the recommended way for an application to determine whether such instructions are available in the toolchain and whether the user has overruled their use? Thanks for any insight you can provide. Bill

9 years, 9 months

3
5
0 0

Re: [lng-odp] Runtime inlining

by Ola Liljedahl

I think there are many issues with binary compatibility beyond function inlining. An ODP application cannot expect all ODP implementations to support the same number of ODP queues or classification rules or even which classification terms (fields) are supported (efficiently/in HW) etc. Is there some kind of lowest common denominator an application should expect? Do we want to make guarantees of an ODP implementation stricter? What are the consequences of such strict functional guarantees? I think an application that requires binary compatibility over ARMv8.1 platforms should compile and link against a specific ODP SW implementation (possibly with some well-defined HW offloads where the underlying platform can provide the relevant drivers). I.e. more of a (user-space) Linux architecture than standard ODP (as influenced by OpenGL). The important binary interfaces then becomes the interfaces to these offloads/drivers. On 16 November 2015 at 14:23, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin <nmorey(a)kalray.eu> wrote: > > > On 11/11/2015 09:45 AM, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) wrote: >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-bounces@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of >>> EXT Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 5:13 PM >>> To: Zoltan Kiss; linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org >>> Cc: lng-odp >>> Subject: Re: [lng-odp] Runtime inlining >>> >>> As I said in the call last week, the problem is wider than that. >>> >>> ODP specifies a lot of types but not their sizes, a lot of >>> enums/defines (things like ODP_PKTIO_INVALID) but not their value >>> either. >>> For our port a lot of those values were changed for >>> performance/implementation reason. So I'm not even compatible between >>> one version of our ODP port and another one. >>> >>> The only way I can see to solve this is for ODP to fix the size of all >>> these types. >>> Default/Invalid values are not that easy, as a pointer would have a >>> completely different behaviour from structs/bitfields >>> >>> Nicolas >>> >> Type sizes do not need to be fixed in general, but only when an application is build for binary compatibility (the use case we are talking here). Binary compatibility and thus the fixed type sizes are defined per ISA. >> >> We can e.g. define a configure target (for our reference implementation == linux-generic) "--binary-compatible=armv8.x" or "--binary-compatible=x86_64". When you build your application with that option, "platform dependent" types and constants would be fixed to pre-defined values specified in (new) ODP API arch files. >> >> So instead of building against odp/platform/linux-generic/include/odp/plat/queue_types.h ... >> >> typedef ODP_HANDLE_T(odp_queue_t); >> #define ODP_QUEUE_INVALID _odp_cast_scalar(odp_queue_t, 0) >> #define ODP_QUEUE_NAME_LEN 32 >> >> >> ... you'd build against odp/arch/armv8.x/include/odp/queue_types.h ... >> >> typedef uintptr_t odp_queue_t; >> #define ODP_QUEUE_INVALID ((uintptr_t)0) >> #define ODP_QUEUE_NAME_LEN 64 >> >> >> ... or odp/arch/x86_64/include/odp/queue_types.h >> >> typedef uint64_t odp_queue_t; >> #define ODP_QUEUE_INVALID ((uint64_t)0xffffffffffffffff) >> #define ODP_QUEUE_NAME_LEN 32 >> >> >> For highest performance on a fixed target platform, you'd still build against the platform directly >> >> odp/platform/<soc_vendor_xyz>/include/odp/plat/queue_types.h >> >> typedef xyz_queue_desc_t * odp_queue_t; >> #define ODP_QUEUE_INVALID ((xyz_queue_desc_t *)0xdeadbeef) >> #define ODP_QUEUE_NAME_LEN 20 >> >> >> -Petri >> > > It still means that you need to enforce a type for all ODP implementation on a given arch. Which could be problematic. > As a precise example: the way handles are used now for odp_packet_t brings some useful features for checks and memory savings, but performance wise, they are a "disaster". One of the first thing I did was to switch them to pointers. And if I wanted a high perf linux x86_64 implementation, I'd probably do the same. > > Nicolas > _______________________________________________ > lng-odp mailing list > lng-odp(a)lists.linaro.org > https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 9 - 13 November 2015

by Omair Javaid

== Progress == LLDB development -- Root Google Nexus devices and read debug module configuration with kernel module [TCWG-429] [7/10] -- Figure out steps to unlock and root Nexus S -- Figure out steps to build kernel and kernel module for Nexus S -- Tried out lldb watchpoints with custom kernel on Nexus S -- Tried out reaching debug co processors without ptrace using kernel module. -- Identify mix-mode debugging problems (ARM & Thumb) [TCWG-229] [2/10] -- Ongoing Initial investigation and indentifying code areas needing changes Miscellaneous [1/10] -- Meetings, emails, discussions etc. == Plan == -- Root Google Nexus devices and read debug module configuration with kernel module [TCWG-429] -- Complete app and kernel module to read debug coprocessor registers. -- Try them out on remaining Android devices. -- Identify mix-mode debugging problems (ARM & Thumb) [TCWG-229] -- Further investigation and testing a mix mode application.

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY]

by Renato Golin

== Progress == * Buildbots (4/10) - Found culprit for self-hosting breakages - Bot didn't get right because of dirty builds - Moving all self-hosting bots to clean builds (~3h) - More work on MIPS patch breaking self-hosting - Several breakages and bisections - Adding first cloud (Scaleway) buildbot to local master - No NEON, so we can't replace the Chromebooks * Infrastructure (4/10) - Power cut in Cambridge Lab, no generator yet - Chromebooks fail at the time of the cut, even with the UPS batteries still holding. I'm guessing the power regulator depends on the internal battery to work (and we removed them) - Bringing all bots up, etc. - Setting up an HiKey/AMD for benchmarks (APMs are too different) - Running EEMBC and SPEC on AMD * Background (2/10) - Code review, meetings, discussions, general support, etc. - Upstreaming -meabi, which may fix builds of kernel, android, bsd - Compiling aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc by hand because Arch pkg didn't work

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] Week 45

by Yvan Roux

o 1 day off (2/10) == Progress == o Linaro GCC (6/10) * FSF branch merge into linaro GCC 5 branch * Troubleshot various regression after the merge * Delivered GCC 5.2 2015.11 snapshot o Upstream work (1/10) * Sanitizing gfortran testsuite o Misc (1/10) * Various meetings == Plan == o Continue on sanitizing testsuite o Backports, infra, ...

9 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-toolchain