- linaro-toolchain - lists.linaro.org

[ACTIVITY] 3-7 November

by Charles Baylis

== Progress == Bug 404 [5/10] Bugs 403/418 [2/10] Misc [3/10] . office move . review

10 years, 12 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 3rd - 7th November

by Bernie Ogden

cbuild2 benchmarking - TCWG-360 [4/10] * SPEC 2006 cross-built binaries now running. Easy when you know how. libm exercising - CARD-1693 [4/10] * Understood improved libm usage on 1 benchmark. * Tried 3 more. 1 shows significantly more time in libm on AArch64 over AArch32. Meetings/mail/etc - [2/10] =Plan= cbuild2 benchmarking * Make sure reporting works * Get working in either LAVA or 'new TCWG infrastructure' * Test repeatability * Get SPEC 2000 working * Possibly have another go at building tools on AArch64 libm exerising * Keep working through the list of benchmarks * Hopefully reach the end and do some analysis

10 years, 12 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] Week 45

by Yvan Roux

== Issues == * none. == Progress == * GCC 4.9 and 4.8 2014.11 (1/10) - Reviewed FSF branch Merges. * Lab move (3/10) - Cherry-picked cbuildv2 master patches in schroot-test - Created a new jenkins job to tst the "schroot lab move" branch - The job is able to build all the targets but validation still not works * Misc: (6/10) - Caught up with mails and irc logs - Prepared a patch that add __LINARO_[RELEASE|SPIN]__ macros. - Reviewed libatomic_ops upstream patch - Validate libunwind upstream patch - Various meetings. == Plan == * Back on backports * Tuesday off (11/11)

10 years, 12 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 3 - 7 November 2014

by Venkataramanan Kumar

= Progress == * TCWG-544 - Investigate core mark performance with both at -O3 with LTO + PGO (6/10) Different IPA inline decisions happening between Linaro and trunk. No major differences in other IPA passes. Trunk Inlines crcu32 and not inlines crcu16. Inlining crcu16 decreases instruction count. Honza pointed out a patch which inlines fucntions based on profile feedback and ignores max inlines parameters. It could be reason why trunk inlines crcu32 and then prevents inlining crcu16. Need to explore on this. * Bug fix - Linaro 849. Reproduced and tested it with trunk revision which fixes it. It looks to be same issue as upstream pr62308 (1/10) * Misc [3/10] Emails, linaro and AMD status meetings. 1-1 with inline mangers (Mev, Ryan). 1-1 with christophe. == Plan == * Debug and understand the inline differences trunk vs linaro compiler for core mark at -O3 with LTO + PGO. * Expecting one Aarch64 Enablement task. * Leave on 11/11/2014.

10 years, 12 months

1
0
0 0

[Weekly] 03-07 NOV 2014

by Michael Collison

== This week == * GCC Modularization Project (9/10) - Flattening header files - gimple-streamer.h, tree-streamer.h, lto-streamer.h - Additional updates based on review: - Created new header files to contain prototypes from .c files - Boostrapped changes - New changes being reviewed - tree-core.h, cfgloop.h, df.h - Removed unnecessary includes - Created new header files to contain exports from .c files * Misc. (1/10) - Conference calls == Next week == - Continue flattening of header files on GCC modularization project - Vacation November 12-14th

10 years, 12 months

1
0
0 0

[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.

10 years, 12 months

1
0
0 0

[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

10 years, 12 months

1
0
0 0

[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

10 years, 12 months

1
0
0 0

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

2
1
0 0

[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

5
5
0 0

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

2
5
0 0

[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

1
0
0 0

[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

1
0
0 0

[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

1
0
0 0

[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

1
0
0 0

[Weekly] 27-31 OCT 2014

by Michael Collison

== This week == * GCC Modularization Project (7/10) - Decided on work near term work objectives with Andrew Macleod - Began flattening header files - gimple-streamer.h (complete) - tree-streamer.h (complete) - lto-streamer.h (complete) - tree-core.h (In progress) - cfgloop.h (In Progress - df.h (In progress) * Vector Extensions Project (2/10) - Design work on C++ classes - Call with Charles Baylis to discuss libvpx benchmark * Misc. (1/10) - Conference calls - ARM required online training == Next week == - Continue flattening of header files on GCC modularization project - Further review of libvpx and vector extensions design work

11 years

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 27-31 October 2014

by Kugan

== Progress == * Zero/sign extension elimination with widening types (TCWG-546 - 10/10) - Fixed regression failures - Fixed bootstrapping issues for ARM and AArch64 - Re-factored and added some comments - x86-64 Bootstrapped and regression tested for all languages with forced promotion. There is 6 differences in scanning for certain instructions. All the execution tests are passing. Needs further investigation. == Plan == * Continue with Zero/sign extension pass. - Benchmarking - Get patch ready for upstream discussion * Improve block memory operations by GCC (TCWG-142) - Start work on this

11 years

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 27-31 October 2014

by Christophe Lyon

== Progress == * GCC trunk/4.9 cross-validation (1/10) - submitted a couple of patches to clean testsuite cases * Neon intrinsic tests (1/10) - submitted patch to avoid running the tests on ARM targets w/o Neon - started adding new tests - created 2 PR about intrinsic tests failing on AArch64_be (1 assigned to Venkat, 1 to me) * AArch64 sanitizer (1/10) - submitted a patch upstream to allow supporting both older and newer kernels No feedback so far. * GCC 4.8 and 4.9 releases (3/10) - preparing both releases including ARM's latest fixes for the A53 erratum - had to respin mid-week after new fix was committed - LINK_SPEC patch not committed yet in 4.8, and committed in 4.9 after I made the branch merge. - now checking results with references. Several FAIL appear. TBC. * cbuild2 schroot and master branches comparison (1/10) - re-ran schroot branch after cleaning spurious "-static" flag left in dejagnu configuration - better results, faster * Misc (3/10) - calls, meetings == Next == * GCC 4.8 and 4.9 releases: hopefully, after branch merge review * AArch64 sanitizer * Neon intrinsics tests update * cbuild2: - analyze previous results - look at backport-test and tcwgweb scripts + logs

11 years

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] Week 44

by Renato Golin

== Progress == * US LLVM Dev Mtg (4/6) * Buildbots (TCWG-76 1/6) - Fixing last bugs of the libcxx bot - One last failure being looked at * Background (1/6) - Code review, meetings, discussions, etc. - Meeting with Google/ARM/Qualcomm about Android+LLVM * Two days off == Plan == * Investigate last libcxx bug * Move lab/office

11 years

1
0
0 0

Re: linaro-toolchain Digest, Vol 52, Issue 16

by 박주형

Thanks for the reply, Will Newton. Then can we expect the fix to be included for the official Android toolchain 2014.11? And, thanks for explaining the culprit of this bug, Jongsung Kim! :) On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 9:00 PM, <linaro-toolchain-request(a)lists.linaro.org> wrote: > Send linaro-toolchain mailing list submissions to > linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > linaro-toolchain-request(a)lists.linaro.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > linaro-toolchain-owner(a)lists.linaro.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of linaro-toolchain digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. RE: Enabling back linker plugin for Linaro Android toolchain > (Jongsung Kim) > 2. Re: Enabling back linker plugin for Linaro Android toolchain > (Will Newton) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:26:30 +0900 > From: "Jongsung Kim" <neidhard.kim(a)lge.com> > To: '???' <qkrwngud825(a)gmail.com>, <linaro-android(a)lists.linaro.org>, > <linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org> > Subject: RE: Enabling back linker plugin for Linaro Android toolchain > Message-ID: <012f01cff31f$c01cea90$4056bfb0$(a)lge.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > The version-string from binutils-linaro looks to be blamed. It once was: > > GNU ld (crosstool-NG linaro-1.13.1-4.7-2013.04-20130415 - Linaro GCC > 2013.04) 2.23.1 > > and the linker plugin works with this version of Linaro prebuilt > toolchain. Now it is: > > GNU ld (crosstool-NG linaro-1.13.1-4.8-2014.04 - Linaro GCC 4.8-2014.04) > 2.24.0.20140311 Linaro 2014.03 > GNU ld (crosstool-NG linaro-1.13.1-4.9-2014.08 - Linaro GCC 4.9-2014.08) > 2.24.0.20140801 Linaro 2014.08 > > and the linker plugin is not supported: > > $ arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc -flto -fuse-linker-plugin -o hello hello.c > arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc: error: -fuse-linker-plugin is not supported in > this configuration > > Look into gcc/configure script. It uses the version of ld to determine > whether ld supports linker plugin. It extracts the version by doing > something like: > > $ arm-linux-gnueabihf-ld --version | sed 1q | sed -n -e 's,^.*[ > ]$[0-9][0-9]*\.[0-9][0-9]*.*$$,\1,p' > > and it will extract the last 2014.03 or 2014.08. By using proper > substitution expression like 's,^GNU ld (.*) $[0-9][.0-9]*$.*$,\1,p', the > script may enable linker plugin. > > However, patching the script looks like a bad idea, because it doesn?t > help handling the version of gold: > > GNU gold (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu 2.24) 1.11 > GNU gold (crosstool-NG linaro-1.13.1-4.7-2013.04-20130415 - Linaro GCC > 2013.04 2.23.1) 1.11 > GNU gold (crosstool-NG linaro-1.13.1-4.8-2014.04 - Linaro GCC 4.8-2014.04 > 2.24.0.20140311 Linaro 2014.03) 1.11 > GNU gold (crosstool-NG linaro-1.13.1-4.9-2014.08 - Linaro GCC 4.9-2014.08 > 2.24.0.20140801 Linaro 2014.08) 1.11 > > I couldn?t find a reasonable general expression to extract the version. > > > From: linaro-toolchain-bounces(a)lists.linaro.org [mailto: > linaro-toolchain-bounces(a)lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of ??? > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 10:15 PM > To: linaro-android(a)lists.linaro.org; linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org > Subject: Enabling back linker plugin for Linaro Android toolchain > > I'm using Linaro Android toolchain's arm-eabi- for compiling my Android > Linux kernel with LTO. > > The main benefits of my kernel is that it uses > LTO(Link-Time-Optimizations). > (Patches found here: https://github.com/andikleen/linux-misc) > > But now, it's broken with Linaro Android toolchains from 2014.09~ > > Building Linux kernel with LTO requires Linker plugin with the toolchain. > > > But for some reason, linker plugin is disabled with 2014.09 and 2014.10 > (Which I used from here : > https://android-build.linaro.org/builds/~linaro-android/toolchain-4.9-2014.… > https://android-build.linaro.org/builds/~linaro-android/toolchain-4.9-2014.… > ) > > LTO build works flawlessly with 2014.08. > > With 2014.09 and 2014.10, I get the following error : > cc1: error: -fno-fat-lto-objects are supported only with linker plugin > > If I explicitly remove " -fno-fat-lto-objects " from the Makefile, the > linker fails to link all of the object files. > > > I would like to ask Linaro to enable back the Linker plugin support :) > > Thanks in advance.. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:12:53 +0000 > From: Will Newton <will.newton(a)linaro.org> > To: Jongsung Kim <neidhard.kim(a)lge.com> > Cc: ??? <qkrwngud825(a)gmail.com>, linaro-android(a)lists.linaro.org, > Linaro Toolchain <linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org> > Subject: Re: Enabling back linker plugin for Linaro Android toolchain > Message-ID: > <CANu=DmhPdCGYw0=hCs9tmkbCU6hMLLMJnYS-u_JGz= > p17Bgonw(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On 29 October 2014 02:26, Jongsung Kim <neidhard.kim(a)lge.com> wrote: > > The version-string from binutils-linaro looks to be blamed. It once was: > > > > GNU ld (crosstool-NG linaro-1.13.1-4.7-2013.04-20130415 - Linaro GCC > 2013.04) 2.23.1 > > > > and the linker plugin works with this version of Linaro prebuilt > toolchain. Now it is: > > > > GNU ld (crosstool-NG linaro-1.13.1-4.8-2014.04 - Linaro GCC 4.8-2014.04) > 2.24.0.20140311 Linaro 2014.03 > > GNU ld (crosstool-NG linaro-1.13.1-4.9-2014.08 - Linaro GCC 4.9-2014.08) > 2.24.0.20140801 Linaro 2014.08 > > > > and the linker plugin is not supported: > > > > $ arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc -flto -fuse-linker-plugin -o hello hello.c > > arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc: error: -fuse-linker-plugin is not supported in > this configuration > > > > Look into gcc/configure script. It uses the version of ld to determine > whether ld supports linker plugin. It extracts the version by doing > something like: > > > > $ arm-linux-gnueabihf-ld --version | sed 1q | sed -n -e 's,^.*[ > ]$[0-9][0-9]*\.[0-9][0-9]*.*$$,\1,p' > > > > and it will extract the last 2014.03 or 2014.08. By using proper > substitution expression like 's,^GNU ld (.*) $[0-9][.0-9]*$.*$,\1,p', the > script may enable linker plugin. > > > > However, patching the script looks like a bad idea, because it doesn?t > help handling the version of gold: > > > > GNU gold (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu 2.24) 1.11 > > GNU gold (crosstool-NG linaro-1.13.1-4.7-2013.04-20130415 - Linaro GCC > 2013.04 2.23.1) 1.11 > > GNU gold (crosstool-NG linaro-1.13.1-4.8-2014.04 - Linaro GCC > 4.8-2014.04 2.24.0.20140311 Linaro 2014.03) 1.11 > > GNU gold (crosstool-NG linaro-1.13.1-4.9-2014.08 - Linaro GCC > 4.9-2014.08 2.24.0.20140801 Linaro 2014.08) 1.11 > > > > I couldn?t find a reasonable general expression to extract the version. > > This should be fixed in binutils-linaro-2.24-2014.11. > > > From: linaro-toolchain-bounces(a)lists.linaro.org [mailto: > linaro-toolchain-bounces(a)lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of ??? > > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 10:15 PM > > To: linaro-android(a)lists.linaro.org; linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org > > Subject: Enabling back linker plugin for Linaro Android toolchain > > > > I'm using Linaro Android toolchain's arm-eabi- for compiling my Android > Linux kernel with LTO. > > > > The main benefits of my kernel is that it uses > LTO(Link-Time-Optimizations). > > (Patches found here: https://github.com/andikleen/linux-misc) > > > > But now, it's broken with Linaro Android toolchains from 2014.09~ > > > > Building Linux kernel with LTO requires Linker plugin with the toolchain. > > > > > > But for some reason, linker plugin is disabled with 2014.09 and 2014.10 > > (Which I used from here : > https://android-build.linaro.org/builds/~linaro-android/toolchain-4.9-2014.… > https://android-build.linaro.org/builds/~linaro-android/toolchain-4.9-2014.… > ) > > > > LTO build works flawlessly with 2014.08. > > > > With 2014.09 and 2014.10, I get the following error : > > cc1: error: -fno-fat-lto-objects are supported only with linker plugin > > > > If I explicitly remove " -fno-fat-lto-objects " from the Makefile, the > linker fails to link all of the object files. > > > > > > I would like to ask Linaro to enable back the Linker plugin support :) > > > > Thanks in advance.. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > linaro-toolchain mailing list > > linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org > > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain > > > > -- > Will Newton > Toolchain Working Group, Linaro > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > linaro-toolchain mailing list > linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain > > > End of linaro-toolchain Digest, Vol 52, Issue 16 > ************************************************ >

11 years

1
0
0 0

Enabling back linker plugin for Linaro Android toolchain

by 박주형

I'm using Linaro Android toolchain's arm-eabi- for compiling my Android Linux kernel with LTO. The main benefits of my kernel is that it uses LTO(Link-Time-Optimizations). (Patches found here: https://github.com/andikleen/linux-misc) But now, it's broken with Linaro Android toolchains from 2014.09~ Building Linux kernel with LTO requires Linker plugin with the toolchain. But for some reason, linker plugin is disabled with 2014.09 and 2014.10 (Which I used from here : https://android-build.linaro.org/builds/~linaro-android/toolchain-4.9-2014.… https://android-build.linaro.org/builds/~linaro-android/toolchain-4.9-2014.… ) LTO build works flawlessly with 2014.08. With 2014.09 and 2014.10, I get the following error : cc1: error: -fno-fat-lto-objects are supported only with linker plugin If I explicitly remove " -fno-fat-lto-objects " from the Makefile, the linker fails to link all of the object files. I would like to ask Linaro to enable back the Linker plugin support :) Thanks in advance..

11 years

3
2
0 0

Linaro Lab Maintenance impacts to the November Toolchain Quarterly release

by Ryan Arnold

Hi All, There will be lab downtime in the month of November, and rather than jeopardize the November quarterly binary toolchain release we've decided to take some steps to ensure that it takes place on time. The November binary toolchain quarterly release will contain some ARM64 erratum fixes. These are already in the Linaro GCC 4.9 2014.10 source package release. The November binary toolchain quarterly release will contain these fixes, and will be delivered as planned, but will be based on the Linaro GCC 4.9 2014.10 package. We will not have a November Linaro GCC 4.9 2014.11 source package release. The December release will be the next Linaro GCC 4.9 source package release. -- Ryan S. Arnold Linaro Toolchain Working Group - Engineering Manager www.linaro.org

11 years

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 20th - 24th October

by Bernie Ogden

cbuild2 benchmarking - TCWG-360 [2/10] * Figured out how to cook my own OE images * Started remembering how to build spec libm exercising - CARD-1693 [2/10] * Borrowed a usable Juno * Found that lapack tests segfault on AArch64 * Ran linpack hpl, didn't observe it exercising libm much ** Haven't ruled out Bernie-error yet, though Upstream - CARD-341 [1/10] * Respun lowlevellock.h comments Meetings/mail/etc [5/10] * A lot of time (>3/10) in performance review and other annual ARM admin * Some back and forth about difficulties of userspace access to ID registers =Plan= Get spec2006 working via my scripts Find a good HPL libm exerciser Spend a lot less time on ARM admin

11 years

2
1
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 20 - 24 October 2014

by Omair Javaid

== Progress == Further progress on GDB Tracepoints/Fast Tracepoints support on arm [TCWG-480] [6/10] -- Debugging and trying out some code enabling tracepoints in gdbserver -- Research on past tracepoint patches and x86 vs arm architecture comparison ARM/AArch64 GDB testsuite failures investigation [2/10] Miscellaneous [2/10] -- Meetings, Emails etc -- Fix SSH configurations -- Patch Scrolling -- Hong Kong visa process -- Multiple Dr visits due to continued sickness == Plan == Further progress on GDB Tracepoints/Fast Tracepoints support on arm [TCWG-480] Fix internet latency issues from lab hardware.

11 years

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 20 - 24 October 2014

by Venkataramanan Kumar

= Progress == * Short week was in vacation (22-24 October) * Updated perf profile numbers for instruction count and documented my analysis for Linaro compiler's O3 + LTO comparison on Aarch64 vs X86_64 (TCWG-544) (2/10) * Misc [2/10] emails, AMD meetings and 1-1 with inline manger. 1-1 with christophe. == Plan == * Coremark benchmark and profiling. Investigate trunk degradation for O3+ PGO + LTO and report.

11 years

1
0
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-toolchain