- linaro-toolchain - lists.linaro.org

by Peter Maydell

Progress: * Linaro Connect Asia (Hong Kong) * Lots of discussions with virtualization team (first time we've all been able to meet up!), making sure we all understand our TODO list, priorities, etc, and getting these details written up in JIRA * Presentation of KVM current status and discussion of next steps; we tried to keep the focus on the discussion/audience input part and I thought it was pretty good * Several linked conversations on UEFI and how it boots hypervisors (including KVM); came to a conclusion everybody was happy with (UEFI mostly runs in SVC mode but provides mechanisms so UEFI bootloader code can start the kernel in Hyp mode as it requires); Grant Likely will be moving this forward * KVM/ARM support patchset for QEMU was accepted into upstream this week! * looked at fixing QEMU's totally broken model of the versatile PCI controller -- PMM

12 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 25th Feb 2013 - 1st March 2013

by Omair Javaid

== This Week === * Compiled GDB graphical report and test-case statistics out of the results generated by running gdb-test suite in different configurations. * Worked on release testing of QEMU. All configurations mentioned in release template have been tested alongwith an extra configuration of 13.01 ubuntu on vexpress. * Kept running around for my Hong Kong visa which is still not with me. == Next week == * Try to make it to The Connect in Hong Kong or at least attend remotely. * Participate in various activities at The Connect.

12 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] report week 09

by Peter Maydell

Progress: * qemu-linaro: rolled tarball, sent it off for testing * investigated and reviewed fixes for upstream regressions in ADC/SBC instruction implementation * sent updated versions of various patchsets * fixed review comments on QEMU KVM support patchset, resent * reviewed a pile of ARM patches from other people and sent arm-devs pullreq -- PMM

12 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 25 - 28 Feb

by Renato Golin

My taxi arrives in a few hours and I still have to buy the wine, so that's all for me for the week... See you guys in Hong Kong!! == Progress == * Vectorizer - Adding more tests to the global structure vectorizer - http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=175964 - http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=175898 - Adding it to the docs - http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=175965 * LLVM Docs - Changing docs here and there - http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=176096 - http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=176090 - http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=176033 - http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=176209 - http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=176211 * Buildbot - Upgraded Pangolin to Ubuntu 12.10, linaro-panda-01 back to life - Investigating breaks on the build, chasing people around - Trying to fix ARMv5 buildbot - http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=176095 - http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=176219 - http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=176243 - http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=176246 - Creating a way to re-spawn broken bots (still very crude) - Discussing about ways for improving uncertainties on LNT benchmarks - Proposed GSoC project to create regression analysis on results * GCC 4.6.3 - Investigating broken LLVM build on Panda/4.6.3 - O3 breaks differently than O2, O1/O0 doesn't break - Works with 4.7 and 4.6.3 on x86_64 even at O3 - Debug step doesn't show much info (mostly optrimized out) * LAVA - Checking with Dave Piggot why git.linaro.org doesn't work with LAVA - Possibly the way I'm doing (clone of a clone of a clone) == Plan == Connect

12 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

crosstool-ng

by Kalai Narayanan-SSI

Hi, I got the crosstool-ng from the 2013.02 release and wanted to build the linaro-aarch64-linux-gnu target locally. During the build, I'm encountering errors. I didn't do any menuconfig for the above target before starting the build. I'm seeing the following errors with the first during the ppl build ... [INFO ] Installing PPL [EXTRA] Configuring PPL [ERROR] configure: error: Cannot find GMP version 4.1.3 or higher. [EXTRA] Saving state to restart at step 'cloog'... ... (from build-ppl/config.log .... ... configure:11257: result: no configure:11392: error: Cannot find GMP version 4.1.3 or higher. GMP is the GNU Multi-Precision library: see http://www.swox.com/gmp/ for more information. ....) ... [INFO ] Installing CLooG/ppl [EXTRA] Configuring CLooG/ppl [ERROR] checking for version 0.10 (or later revision) of PPL... configure: error: Can't find correct version of PPL. [EXTRA] Saving state to restart at step 'mpc'... ... (from build-cloog-ppl/cobnfig.log ... ... configure:11237: error: Can't find correct version of PPL. ...) If I'm building a known target with the released version, why am I seeing these errors? Thanks, Kalai

12 years, 7 months

2
3
0 0

Linaro Toolchain Binaries 2013.02 released

by Bernhard Rosenkränzer

The Linaro Toolchain and Platform Working Groups are pleased to announce the 2013.02 release of the Linaro Toolchain Binaries, a pre-built version of Linaro GCC and Linaro GDB that runs on generic Linux or Windows and targets the glibc Linaro Evaluation Build. Uses include: * Cross compiling ARM applications from your laptop * Remote debugging * Build the Linux kernel for your board What's included: * Linaro GCC 4.7 2013.02-01 * Linaro GDB 7.5 2012.12 * A statically linked gdbserver * A system root * Manuals under share/doc/ The system root contains the basic header files and libraries to link your programs against. Interesting changes include: * binutils is upgraded to 2.23.1 * eglibc is upgraded to 2.17 * kernel header is upgraded to 3.7 The Linux version is supported on Ubuntu 10.04.3 and 12.04, Debian 6.0.2, Fedora 16, openSUSE 12.1, Red Hat Enterprise Linux Workstation 5.7 and later, and should run on any Linux Standard Base 3.0 compatible distribution. Please see the README about running on x86_64 hosts. The Windows version is supported on Windows XP Pro SP3, Windows Vista Business SP2, and Windows 7 Pro SP1. The binaries and build scripts are available from: https://launchpad.net/linaro-toolchain-binaries/trunk/2013.02 Need help? Ask a question on https://ask.linaro.org/ Already on Launchpad? Submit a bug at https://bugs.launchpad.net/linaro-toolchain-binaries On IRC? See us on #linaro on Freenode. Other ways that you can contact us or get involved are listed at https://wiki.linaro.org/GettingInvolved.

12 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

AArch64 asm statement question

by Yvan Roux

Hi, in the example below I want to explicitly generate a "store exclusive pair" instruction with an asm statement: typedef struct { long unsigned int v1; long unsigned int v2; } mtype; int main () { mtype val[2] ; val[0].v1 = 1234; val[0].v2 = 5678; int status; do { __asm__ __volatile__( " stxp %0, %2, %3, %1" : "=&r" (status), "=Q" (val[1]) : "r" (val[0].v1), "r" (val[0].v2) ); } while (status != 0); if (val[1].v1 == 1234 && val[1].v2 == 5678) return 0; return 1; } The generated assembly is: .L7: ldr x0, [sp] ldr x1, [sp,8] .L3: add x3, sp, 16 stxp x2, x0, x1, [x3] cbnz w2, .L7 and the issue is that the assembler is not happy of the register x2 used to store the exclusive access status, it should be w2, but looking at constraint.md it seems that there is no constraint to say that we want the 32bit version of the register. Any idea ? Many thanks Yvan

12 years, 7 months

3
5
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 18th Feb 2013 - 22nd Feb 2013

by Omair Javaid

== This Week === * Wrote a python script that parses GDB Testsuite log file and filters out all results and tests which were not passed. * Wrote another python script that compares filtered output of GDB log taken out from different configurations. This script compares results of various tests which didn't pass in current configuration with their corresponding results in GDB log of other configurations. * Generated various comparison pie charts and bar charts to show the testing results of GDB in different configurations. * Updated Wiki pages with help for people getting started with remote Pandaboards. * Updated wiki pages with help for people getting started with GDB development and testing remotely. * Ran after my visa agent for quick processing of my Hong Kong visa. == Next week == * Manual analysis of GDB test results for any possible issues on ARM platform. * Finish up the comparison document of all GDB test suite log files. * Follow up on hong kong visa application. * Flying to Karchi this Friday to catch flight to Hong Kong permitting visa.

12 years, 8 months

2
2
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 19-22 Feb 2013

by Venkataramanan Kumar

== Progress == * Implementing GC sections support in binutils. Tested the patch for enabling gc section. "make ld-check" now passes after setting compiler in the PATH. Used the patched binutils source and built GCC for aarch64-none-elf. Ran gcc tests on V8 foundation model. Submitted the patch to FSF binutils for a review. * Analysis on jump threading in GCC. Not much progress this week. Identified few areas where we can improve. - In Normal jump threading see if we can thread across loop latch and loop header. - Lowering switch cases in simple and see if threading benefits. - Improve threading in VRP. Misc ------ * Was on leave Friday 22nd. * Attend tool chain weekly meet, and stand up call * Had a look at one x86_64 related patch. == Next week == * Update review comments if any and upstream gc sections support patch . * Continue analysis on jump threading in GCC.

12 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

How to compiled code with 32-bit lib

by Tien-Pao Shih

Hi, I tried to generate a binary containing only ARM 32-bit ISA. The toolchain I used is gcc-linaro-arm-linux-gnueabihf-4.7-2013.01-20130125_linux. The compilation options are -O3 -mcpu=Cortex-A15 -marm -static. I could get 32-bit ARM ISA for my own C code, but not the C lib functions, such as strcpy. Is there a way to invoke 32-bit ARM ISA C library code? Thanks, Tien-Pao

12 years, 8 months

2
1
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 19-22 Feb 2013

by Kugan Vivekanandarajah

== Progress == - Fix EPILOGUE_USES regression in CoreMark - CBUILD tasks had to be respwaned. Zhenqiang sent me links and instructions. Build tasks are still in the queue. - Tried with some simple test cases mostly to understand dataflow and register allocator modules in gcc. - Remove Unnecessary Zero/Sign Extensions - Looked in detail a patch http://old.nabble.com/new-sign-zero-extension-elimination-pass-to29991676.h… which does extension elimination with sudo registers. This patch is not part of gcc mainstream. There were some concerns of runtime, using existing passes to handle this and not catching all the extension in the discussion. - Looked at gcc pass ree which does elimination after register allocation. As it is, it does not eliminate some of the cases I tried. Looking into it. == Plan for next week == - Work on Remove Unnecessary Zero/Sign Extensions and get ready to discuses this in connect. It might not be possible to run this with CBUILD therefore going to try with simple test cases already discussed and considered by others.

12 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 19-22 Feb 2013

by Yvan Roux

== Progress == * February 4.7 release: - Released a respin of 4.7 2013.02, which fixes an issue with multiarch on x32 and kfreebsd builds. * Boehm GC AArch64 support: - Fixed 128-bit atomic load/store and 'compare and swap' functions - Testsuite is now OK * AArch64 porting meeting: - No new requirements * Infrastructure: - Wifi now usable on my laptop == Next == * vacation * Connect

12 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 19-22 Feb

by Renato Golin

Some days sick, reduced output... == Progress == * Vectorization - Global Structures now vectorizing (some access) - http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=175818 - http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=175898 - Working on remaining cases * Buildbots - First overnight testing buildbot on ARM up and running - 19 failures: 11 real ones + Exception Handling (expected) - http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-native-arm-lnt - 4 failures are bad tests (on ARM), 1 is failing in X86 - Performance monitoring on its infancy - http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/machine/10 == Plan == * Continue working on global structure vectorization * Update blueprints/cards with James pre-Connect * Investigate if it's possible to do regressions with the performance data * Try some LAVA jobs, raise concerns for Connect

12 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 19-22 Feb 2013

by Christophe Lyon

== Progress == * smin-umin: waiting for benchmark results with 'coalesce-vars' patch reverted on trunk. * libsanitizer: its backtrace printing facility relies on unwinding info not present by default in binaries. Adding -funwind-tables improves the results in GCC testsuite. There is still an interaction between runtest/qemu and isatty() which confuses dejagnu. Forcing libsanitizer's internal_isatty to return 0 fixes it. TBC. * vectorizer cost model: backport in 4.7 required to remove a part, for lack of new vectorizer infrastructure (arm_add_stmt_cost). * 'turnoff 64bits ops in Neon': waiting for benchmark results after backporting on 4.7. * internal tasks == Next == * holidays next week * Connect week after

12 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] report week 8

by Peter Maydell

Progress: * updated various Virtualization category cards in cards.linaro.org with my comments and clarifications * rebased qemu-linaro on upstream 1.4.0 * upstream code review: pl330 and others * prompted by LP:1129571 into another look at the linux-user threading issues. I dusted off an ancient patch I'd written to address one part of these, rebased it and rewrote it to work properly. * KVM/ARM kernel patches are now upstream, so we can submit the QEMU patches; started on a final rebase, polish and test Absences: * NB: I now work a 4 day week, excluding Wednesdays * 4-8 March: Linaro Connect Asia (Hong Kong) -- PMM

12 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

Linpack Benchmark - Vectorizer

by Renato Golin

Hi folks, Attached is the Linpack benchmark, which I ran GCC and Clang with and without vectorization (though most of the loops are not vectorized). Reading the output of LLVM loop vectorizer, it also doesn't do much, but the net gain is due to the basic-block vectorizer. Does GCC has a similar concept? The results are also attached. cheers, --renato

12 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

[ANNOUNCE] Linaro GCC 4.7 2013.02-01 released.

by Yvan Roux

The Linaro Toolchain Working Group announce the 2013.02-01 Linaro GCC 4.7 release. This is a respin of the 2013.02 release because of an issue with multiarch for x32 and kfreebsd builds in the previous one. Please find the original 2013.02 announcement below. The Linaro Toolchain Working Group is pleased to announce the 2013.02 release of both Linaro GCC 4.7 and Linaro GCC 4.6. Linaro GCC 4.7 2013.02 is the eleventh release in the 4.7 series. Based off the latest GCC 4.7.2+svn195745 release, it includes ARM-focused performance improvements and bug fixes. Interesting changes include: * Updates to GCC 4.7.2+svn195745 * Includes arm/aarch64-4.7-branch up to svn revision 195716 * Support for Cortex-A7 backported from trunk Linaro GCC 4.6 2013.02 is the 24th release in the 4.6 series. Based off the latest GCC 4.6.3+svn195744 release, this is the eleventh release after entering maintenance. Interesting changes include: * Updates to 4.6.3+svn195744 The source tarballs are available from: https://launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/+milestone/4.7-2013.02 https://launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/+milestone/4.6-2013.02 Downloads are available from the Linaro GCC page on Launchpad: https://launchpad.net/gcc-linaro More information on the features and issues are available from the release pages: https://launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/4.7/4.7-2013.02 https://launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/4.6/4.6-2013.02 Mailing list: http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain Bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/ Questions? https://ask.linaro.org/

12 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [PATCH] ARM: decompressor: clear SCTLR.A bit for v7 cores

by Michael Hope

On 6 November 2012 02:48, Rob Herring <robherring2(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11/05/2012 05:13 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 10:48:50AM +0000, Dave Martin wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 05:08:16PM +0200, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > >>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:25:06AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > >>>> On 10/25/2012 09:16 AM, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:41:45AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > >>>>>> On 10/25/2012 04:34 AM, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 07:43:22AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> While v6 can support unaligned accesses, it is optional and current > >>>>>>>> compilers won't emit unaligned accesses. So we don't clear the A bit for > >>>>>>>> v6. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> not true according to the gcc changes page > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What are you going to believe: documentation or what the compiler > >>>>>> emitted? At least for ubuntu/linaro 4.6.3 which has the unaligned access > >>>>>> support backported and 4.7.2, unaligned accesses are emitted for v7 > >>>>>> only. I guess default here means it is the default unless you change the > >>>>>> default in your build of gcc. > >>>>> > >>>>> Since ARMv6 can handle unaligned access in the same way as ARMv7 > >>>>> it seems a clear bug in gcc which might hopefully get fixed. > >>>>> Thus in this case I think it is reasonable to follow the > >>>>> gcc documentation, otherwise the code would break for ARMv6 > >>>>> when gcc gets fixed. > >>>> > >>>> But the compiler can't assume the state of the U bit. I think it is > >>>> still legal on v6 to not support unaligned accesses, but on v7 it is > >>>> required. All the standard v6 ARM cores support it, but I'm not sure > >>>> about custom cores or if there are SOCs with buses that don't support > >>>> unaligned accesses properly. > >>> > >>> Well, I read the "...since Linux version 2.6.28" comment > >>> in the gcc changes page in the way that they assume the > >>> U-bit is set. (Although I'm not sure it really is???) > >> > >> Actually, the kernel checks the arch version and the U bit on boot, > >> and chooses the appropriate setting for the A bit depending on the > >> result. (See arch/arm/mm/alignment.c:alignment_init().) > > > > That is in the kernel itself, _after_ the decompressor has run. It is > > not relevant to any discussion about the decompressor. > > > >> Currently, we depend on the CPU reset behaviour or firmware/ > >> bootloader to set the U bit for v6, but the behaviour should be > >> correct either way, though unaligned accesses will obviously > >> perform (much) better with U=1. > > > > Will someone _PLEASE_ address my initial comments against this patch > > in light of the fact that it's now been proven _NOT_ to be just a V7 > > issue, rather than everyone seemingly buring their heads in the sand > > over this. > > I tried adding -munaligned-accesses on a v6 build and still get byte > accesses rather than unaligned word accesses. So this does seem to be a > v7 only issue based on what gcc will currently produce. Copying Michael > Hope who can hopefully provide some insight on why v6 unaligned accesses > are not enabled. This looks like a bug. Unaligned access is enabled for armv6 but seems to only take effect for cores with Thumb-2. Here's a test case both with unaligned field access and unaligned block copy: struct foo { char a; int b; struct { int x[3]; } c; } __attribute__((packed)); int get_field(struct foo *p) { return p->b; } int copy_block(struct foo *p, struct foo *q) { p->c = q->c; } With -march=armv7-a you get the correct: bar: ldr r0, [r0, #1] @ unaligned @ 11 unaligned_loadsi/2 [length = 4] bx lr @ 21 *arm_return [length = 12] baz: str r4, [sp, #-4]! @ 25 *push_multi [length = 4] mov r2, r0 @ 2 *arm_movsi_vfp/1 [length = 4] ldr r4, [r1, #5]! @ unaligned @ 9 unaligned_loadsi/2 [length = 4] ldr ip, [r1, #4] @ unaligned @ 10 unaligned_loadsi/2 [length = 4] ldr r1, [r1, #8] @ unaligned @ 11 unaligned_loadsi/2 [length = 4] str r4, [r2, #5] @ unaligned @ 12 unaligned_storesi/2 [length = 4] str ip, [r2, #9] @ unaligned @ 13 unaligned_storesi/2 [length = 4] str r1, [r2, #13] @ unaligned @ 14 unaligned_storesi/2 [length = 4] ldmfd sp!, {r4} bx lr With -march=armv6 you get a byte-by-byte field access and a correct unaligned block copy: bar: ldrb r1, [r0, #2] @ zero_extendqisi2 ldrb r3, [r0, #1] @ zero_extendqisi2 ldrb r2, [r0, #3] @ zero_extendqisi2 ldrb r0, [r0, #4] @ zero_extendqisi2 orr r3, r3, r1, asl #8 orr r3, r3, r2, asl #16 orr r0, r3, r0, asl #24 bx lr baz: str r4, [sp, #-4]! mov r2, r0 ldr r4, [r1, #5]! @ unaligned ldr ip, [r1, #4] @ unaligned ldr r1, [r1, #8] @ unaligned str r4, [r2, #5] @ unaligned str ip, [r2, #9] @ unaligned str r1, [r2, #13] @ unaligned ldmfd sp!, {r4} bx lr readelf -A shows that the compiler planned to use unaligned access in both. My suspicion is that GCC is using the extv pattern to extract the field from memory, and that pattern is only enabled for Thumb-2 capable cores. I've logged PR55218. We'll discuss it at our next meeting. -- Michael

12 years, 8 months

2
2
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 11-15 Feb 2013

by Christophe Lyon

== Progress == * smin-umin: spawned build jobs for gcc-trunk with 'coalesce-vars' patch reverted (from A.Oliva), so that I can then run benchmarks to compare its effect with the one observed on gcc-4.7. * libasan: thanks to Peter, I am able to run sample programs under qemu. Ran GCC testsuite, observed some failures, to be investigated. * vectorizer cost model: committed upstream in 4.8. * Released gcc-linaro-4.6-2013.02 and gcc-linaro-4.7-2013.02. * backported 'turnoff 64 bits ops in Neon' from upstream to gcc-linaro-4.7. Waiting for builds to complete to launch benchmark jobs. * internal tasks == Next == * smin-umin: look at benchmarks results if available * libasan: analyse testsuite results * 64bits ops in Neon; look at benchmarks results if available * get more codec samples Christophe.

12 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 11-15 Feb 2013

by Yvan Roux

== Progress == * February merge 4.6 and 4.7 - Another issue raised by Matthias, fix merged. - The merge request exposed a new failure on i686 (ld seg. fault) which looks like the ones we had on i686 before the release, re-spawned the job to see if we can reproduce. * Boehm GC AArch64 support: - Fixed some defect, identified some cases not implementable by atomic builtins, worked on inline asm versions. - re-installed working environment to be able to test the gcc integration (thanks to Matt) * Aarch64 porting meeting: - No new requirements. == Next == * Review roster. * Boehm GC AArch64 support: - fix libatomic_ops - validate GCC's Boehm gc integration * libunwind aarch64 support: - continue.

12 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 11th Feb 2013 - 15th Feb 2013

by Omair Javaid

== This Week === * Got the remote Pandaboard RootFS updates, Thanks to Dave again. * Got the SSH tunnels going for remote GDB test suite executions, thougt a single remote run takes eternity to complete. * Analysis of GDB test suite log files separated the failures and other test cases which were not passed as for the analysis. * Preliminary analysis done on GDB logs for remote configuration on ARM in comparison with native configuration. == Next week == * Try to complete log file analysis and post results. * Try to run GDB test suite using QEMU. * Follow up on hong kong visa application -- *** Sorry about spamming I got the subject wrong in the first email.

12 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 4th Feb 2013 - 8th Feb 2013

by Omair Javaid

== This Week === * Tried running GDB test suite with QEMU linux user-mode with not much success * Configured Pandaboard and ran GDB test suite in native and native-gdbserver configurations. * More of office setup and purchase of some bits and pieces * Gateway set up and Pandaboard access finally worked after some help from Dave and Matt. * Finally purchased Ticket for the Connect and also filled visa application * Attended Weekly toolchain call * Still suffering from a bad run of cough n flu, done with antibiotics now. * Public Holiday on 5th Feburary == Next week == * Continue with Analysis of GDB status on ARM in different configurations possible. * SSH tunnels and port forwarding setup to gateway and lab for smooth access. * Follow up on hong kong visa application

12 years, 8 months

1
1
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 11-15 Feb 2013

by Venkataramanan Kumar

== Progress == * Implementing GC sections support in binutils Wrote a patch to update some AARCH64 GOT and PLT symbol ref counts while sweeping sections. During "make ld-check" some tests are not running. Checking the issue. Discussed with Matt and decided to use default gc_mark hook. Most ports care BFD_RELOC_VTABLE_INHERIT and BFD_RELOC_VTABLE_ENTRY relocs during gc section marking. Now these relocs are not supported in AARCH64. * Analysis on jump threading in GCC Switch cases are not lowered in GCC till RTL expand stage. Looking at a patch on lowering switch to GIMPLE and see jump threading behaves. Misc ------ * Attend tool chain weekly meet, and stand up call * Had a look at one x86_64 related GCC build error. == Next week == * Continue Implementing GC sections support in binutils and test the patch. * Continue analysis on jump threading in GCC. Planning to look at Tree VRP as per Andrew pinski suggestion.

12 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

Hard Floating Point Question

by Derek Rollend

Hello, I am currently trying to determine how much I can optimize OpenCV using the ARM's VFP and the Linaro nano image. I have downloaded the arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc & arm-linux-gnueabihf-g++ compilers, successfully cross-compiled OpenCV using those compilers (with -O3 -mfloat-abi=hard -ftree-vectorize -funroll-loops), and compiled an example OpenCV program with the arm-linux-gnueabihf-g++ compiler (with the same flags). However, when I try and run my executable within Linaro (running on a gumstix overo) I get "/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/libm.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.15' not found (required by /usr/lib/libopencv_core.so.2.2). I assume that this is because on my build machine (x86 Ubuntu 10.04) where I cross compiled the OpenCV libraries I am using libc-2.15, and on the target (gumstix) the loader can't find libc-2.15. However, within the gcc-linaro-arm-linux-gnueabihf-4.7 tar ball I downloaded today, there is a libc-2.15.so file in there that I copied into /lib/ on the gumstix. Still no success though when I try running my executable. Any recommendations on things to try? I am hesitant to just put a newer version of glibc in Linaro as it seems like that could screw a lot of things up. Should I attempt to re-build OpenCV somehow with an older version of glibc (namely libc-2.13)? Also, please let me know if this is the wrong forum for this question and where I should post it instead. Thanks, Derek

12 years, 8 months

5
11
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 11 - 15 Feb

by Kugan Vivekanandarajah

== Progress == -Spawned CBUILD tasks with and without the patch proposed by Chung-Lin Tang to test current status of "Fix EPILOGUE_USES regression in CoreMark". Job is still in the queue. -Read references listed in gcc/ira.c to understand gcc IRA and went through the source code. -Experimented with simple test cases to analyse IRA debug output. == Plan for next week == - Analyse CoreMark results if ready and work on improvements. - Start with research for Removing unnecessary zero/sign extends when not working on "Fix EPILOGUE_USES regression in CoreMark.

12 years, 8 months

1
0
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-toolchain