- linaro-toolchain - lists.linaro.org

by Marcin Juszkiewicz

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/

13 years, 7 months

3
8
0 0

Linaro toolchain and ARMv6

by ezjd

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

13 years, 7 months

4
4
0 0

Bug triage of 941676

by Asa Sandahl

Hi Michael, A new bug triaging question. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ppl/+bug/941676 This one is special too because the failure is on powerpc. This means, I cannot reproduce it easily, and scan through the toolchains (without building). Matthias has given some information and a guess of what is failing. My idea was to just summarize this, and let the person who takes on the bug make the powerpc investigation. How do we handle bugs on other architectures in general? Best regards Åsa

13 years, 7 months

2
1
0 0

Bug triaging of 945503

by Asa Sandahl

Hi! I need a little help with triaging of this bug, it is a little different from the ones I have triaged so far: https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/945503 - gcc-4.7 branch imports fail (timeouts) It is already set to Confirmed, my question is what is needed to go to the triaged stage? Also, the comments from wgrant and jelmer somewhat indicates that there is no problem. Best regards Åsa

13 years, 7 months

2
1
0 0

Test failures due to directory names in the test farm

by Ulrich Weigand

Hello, since this long-standing problem just hit me again, I had a quick look at test failures in our farm that appear to occur whenever the directory name contains a string that is being checked for via a "scan-assembler" test, e.g.: +FAIL: gcc.target/arm/sat-1.c scan-assembler-times ssat 4 +FAIL: gcc.target/arm/sat-1.c scan-assembler-times usat 4 I had been assuming this happens because the directory name somehow finds its name into the assembler file, e.g. via a .file directive or DWARF data, and therefore an additional instance of the search string is being detected erroneously. However, when I attemted to re-create the scenario by building myself within a directory that has the same name, but on my local machine, the tests when through fine. And indeed, inspecting the assembler source shows that that there is no debug info at all; while there is a .file directive, it contains just the file base name without any directory name; and in fact the directory name does not show up at all within the assembler file. Something must still be different in the runs that take place on the build farm; but I currently do not understand what that might be. Michael, is there a way to interact with the build process on the build farm machines themselves to try and find out what's going on here? 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 Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Koederitz | Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen | Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294

13 years, 7 months

3
3
0 0

Bombing U-Boot on ARMv4, any hints?

by Linus Walleij

Hi toolchain folks, I have a problem with U-boot compiled for an ARMv4 system (Integrator) using Linaro 2012.02-20120222, it just crashes. Compiling the same U-Boot with CodeSourcery 2010-q1 works fine. Symptom: Resetting CPU ... undefined instruction pc : [<07fdecd4>] lr : [<07fdeb34>] sp : 07f91380 ip : 00000000 fp : 00000001 r10: 010258fc r9 : 00000000 r8 : 07f94f64 r7 : 07f94eb0 r6 : 00989680 r5 : 000186a0 r4 : 000186a0 r3 : 000003e8 r2 : 000f423f r1 : 000f4240 r0 : 05f5e100 Flags: nzCv IRQs on FIQs on Mode SVC_32 (repeated ad nauseam) The only hint I have is the constant 000186a0, which appears here in the put_dec() routine from U-boots vsprintf(), which is nothing special, it's Douglas Jones' binary to decimal conversion code from the Linux kernel, but the compiles objects DOES contain calls to __aeabi_uidivmod, __udivsi3, __div64_32. Do we know of any potential trouble in these helpers on ARMv4? The file containing these functions is compiled like this: arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc -M -g -Os -fno-common -ffixed-r8 -msoft-float -D__KERNEL__ -DCONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE=0x01000000 -I/var/linus/u-boot/build-integrator/include2 -I/var/linus/u-boot/build-integrator/include -I/var/linus/u-boot/include -fno-builtin -ffreestanding -nostdinc -isystem /home/linus/src/gcc-linaro-arm-linux-gnueabi-2012.02-20120222_linux/bin/../lib/gcc/arm-linux-gnueabi/4.6.3/include -pipe -DCONFIG_ARM -D__ARM__ -marm -mabi=aapcs-linux -mno-thumb-interwork -march=armv4 -MQ /var/linus/u-boot/build-integrator/lib/vsprintf.o vsprintf.c >/var/linus/u-boot/build-integrator/lib/.depend.vsprintf Yours, Linus Walleij

13 years, 7 months

2
4
0 0

4.6 branch does not build

by Khem Raj

Hi FWIW the backport from trunk in r106872 breaks the gcc build Something like attached is missing from backport -- -Khem

13 years, 7 months

2
4
0 0

[ACTIVITY] Feb 27 - Mar 2

by Thiago Jung Bauermann

Hi, GDB on Android: * Spent some time understanding the intricate build process used to compile NDK's gdbserver. * After a lot of tinkering and trial and error I was finally able to produce a gdbserver binary which when running on the Android emulator and talking to a GDB (also compiled by me) on the host is able to show all threads and provide a useful backtrace. -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann Linaro Toolchain Working Group

13 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

Launchpad tricks

by Michael Hope

Hi there. When you do a commit that fixes a bug, try adding a '--fixes lp:123456' to the bzr commit. Launchpad recognises these and automatically link the branch and merge request to the bug report. This makes it easier for the reporter to see progress. If you forget to update the bug status (such as bumping it from 'Triaged' to 'In progress') then it's obvious that it's being worked on. See https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/+bug/942307 for an example. The status was 'Triaged' but there's an approved merge request which shows work is being done. -- Michael

13 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

New conference call numbers

by Michael Hope

The new conference call numbers have arrived. Let's use them for today's call. The toll free numbers are: * Australia: 1 800 804 786 * China: +400 120 05 90 * Germany: 01801 003 899 * New Zealand: 0800 452 947 * Sweden: 0200 125 588 * UK: 0845 351 2782 * USA: 1-866-398-2885 Alternates, including cheaper (for Linaro) local numbers are: * International toll free - Germany: 0800 588 9170 * International toll free - UK: 0800 358 6385 * Local - Australia, Sydney: +61 (0) 2 8017 6064 * Local - Brazil, Rio de Janeiro: +55 21 4063 8292 * Local - Brazil, Sao Paulo: +55 11 3351 7036 * Local - China, Beijing: +86 10 5904 5041 * Local - Germany, Frankfurt: +49 (0) 69 2222 10612 * Local - Germany, Munich: +49 (0) 89 2030 31207 * Local - Sweden, Stockholm: +46 (0) 8 5065 3956 * Local - UK, London: +44 (0) 20 3481 0123 * Local - UK, Reading: +44 (0) 11 8370 0116 * USA Toll: 1-719-457-6209 A temporary full list is at: https://wiki.linaro.org/MichaelHope/Sandbox/ZipNumbers I'll update the invite. -- Michael

13 years, 7 months

3
5
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 27th February - 2nd March

by Andrew Stubbs

Merged FSF GCC 4.7 to the Linaro GCC 4.7 branch. Merged from GCC 4.6.3 release to Linaro GCC 4.6 branch. Wrote and posted a patch to load DImode immediate constant into NEON registers properly. Unfortunately, testing showed a bootstrap stage 2 vs. 3 miscompare, so there's something not quite right. However, disassembly of the binaries hasn't revealed any problems, so this failure is still a mystery. More investigation required. Wrote and posted a patch to do DImode negation in NEON. Realised that I had forgotten to do the core-register fall-back case; posted a new version. Again, there's something annoyingly subtle that prevents bootstrap. This time it looks like some sort of wrong code bug. Investigating. Wrote and posted a patch to do DImode one's complement in NEON. Richard E questioned how it was written though. The tests passed successfully, so that's a novelty this week! Looked for other NEON instructions missing support. Didn't find any ... but the machine description isn't exactly straight forward. Considered the problems with choosing whether or not to do an operation in NEON, or not. Discussed the existing state and possible solutions with Ramana and Benrd (thanks Guys). Thought about it some more. Posted a vague description of what might fix it to the linaro-toolchain list. Awaiting replies.

13 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] w09

by Asa Sandahl

Hi! * Development benchmarks: Finished the first implementation, sent to Michael for review. * This became a very short week because of sickness. Plans for week 10 is to triage existing bugs, and to get going again with the SunSpider benchmark. Regards Åsa

13 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

[Activity ] Week 9

by Zhenqiang Chen

Summary: * Multilib on linaro toolchain. Details: 1. Multilib test for linaro toolchain. * Fix the multilib build issue when multiarch patch is applied. * Fix a bug in crosstool-ng upstream to build multilib for glibc/eglibc. * Successfully build multilib toolchain for armv6t2, cortex-a8 and cortex-a9. And tests show it can link the correct libraries. 2. Still issues: * Multilib and multiarch uses different directory structures. Multilib build can not find the correct directories in the prebuilt oneiric-sysroot. * Build armv5t arm mode lib when default mode is thumb for armv7-a. Annual leaves: * Mar. 1-2. Plans: * Finalize the multilib solution for linaro binary toolchain. * Work on code size optimization for the embedded toolchain. Best regards! -Zhenqiang

13 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [RFC] NEON vs. ARM register selection

by Steven Bosscher

> The basic idea is that we add a new RTL optimization pass (or two) that > assesses the usage of pseudo registers, and makes recommendations about > what register class each should end up in, if there's a choice. These > recommendations would then be used by later passes to get a better use > of NEON. I might call this the "prealloc" pass, or something. That sounds very much like the pre-reload that "new-ra" had at one point (http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/branches/new-regalloc-branch/gcc/pre-reload.c). The problem with pre-reload for new-ra was that it was basically reload instead of something nicer and cleaner. It also only ran just before the register allocator, which is too late for the problem you are trying to solve. > Firstly, for each pseudo-register in a function, the pass would look at > the insn constraints for each "def" and "use", and see how the registers > relate to one another. This might determine things like "if rN is in > class A, then rM must be also in class A". At SUSE I tried to do this with the webizer pass (web.c). I wrote down the ideas we implemented at the time (see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-01/msg00179.html): - web class, to replace regclass and choose register classes webs instead of pseudos. This also includes splitting webs if a register in a web really wants to be in two different classes to satisfy constraints in two different insns. Right now, as far as I understand, regclass just picks one and lets reload figure out how to fix up that mistake. - A semi-strict RTL mode. Right now there is just strict and non-strict. On the branch there is a semi-strict mode which is the same as strict RTL except that pseudo-registers are still allowed. - pre-reload (which is related to web class) to make sure as many insn constraints as possible are satisfied before the register allocator goes to work. Basically, after pre-reload the insns stream should be in semi-strict RTL form. I used the webizer to unify defs and uses. I would split a web if it needed multiple register classes (I inserted a mov, without checking that a move existed from the source to the target register class), and I put pseudos r1 and r2 in the same register class if there was an insn (set (r1) (r2)) somewhere. The selection of the register classes had a cost function, but I used rtx_cost, which is not very effective, really. But I never took this experiment very far because for x86-64 the plan didn't work as well as I had hoped. I don't remember the details, but the biggest problem I had with the experimental implementation of these ideas (apart from lots of trouble with recog for semi-strict RTL) was that there is a bit of an ordering problem between combine on the one hand, and web-based register classes. If you assign classes too early and don't allow things to change, then combine fails too often. If you assign register classes after combine, you may not get the instructions selected the way you want them to be. This was when GCC still had the old local-alloc.c and global.c allocators. Things may be different (better) with IRA and the upcoming LRA stuff. If you plan to work on this, I would suggest you discuss the plan on the GCC mailing list also, with Jeff Law and Vladimir Makarov in CC because they are working on a reload rewrite (LRA). Ciao! Steven

13 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] weekly status

by Ken Werner

Hi, OpenEmbedded: * Worked on the meta-linaro layer and added libgcc and crosssdk recipes to satisfy some bitbake dependencies * I had to apply a few patches to build the linaro toolchain the OE way (mostly gcc configury) * successfully built the sato and Qt images * Moved on to test the February release of the linaro binary toolchain and (probably) and hit an issue with unaligned SD card images to used with QEMU * the guest kernel fails with: attempt to access beyond end of device * /proc/partitions shows different block sizes (host vs. guest) * the image size gets calculated on the fly by OE * patch posted that introduces allows to specify a rootfs size alignment * not seen on trunk as they use IDE * Started to rebase the linaro-meta layer against current OE-core * created https://wiki.linaro.org/KenWerner/Sandbox/OEMetaLinaroCard based on the existent card of David R. Regards, Ken

13 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] Feb 27 - Mar 2

by Ulrich Weigand

== GCC == * Fixed mainline regression causing ICE in certain outer-loop vectorization cases. * Merged fwprop-subreg patch into Linaro GCC 4.7. * Completed patch to generate usat/ssat instructions where appropriate; checked into GCC mainline. Merge requests to Linaro GCC 4.6 and 4.7 pending. * Ongoing work on improving end-of-loop value computation. 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

13 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

[Activity ] Week 9

by Ramana Radhakrishnan

==Progress=== * Finished off PGO patch - sent upstream. * Finished off the ABI tests - sent upstream. * Investigated fixes for LP 942307 - a problem with kernel builds for android. Backported a fix from Uli last year. * Upstream patch review. * Small configury done for SPEC2k as far as HC partitioning goes. * Some Android benchmark investigations. * Recovered from a broken upgrade on my laptop from natty to oneiric on my laptop and then went all the way to Precise. It works reasonably ! === Plans === * Commit all approved and tested patches. * Check on hc partitioning results from SPEC2k and make sure there is an improvement and the feature works ! * Investigate https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/+bug/924726 in a little more detail. * Get back to 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.

13 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

Agenda for next performance call

by Ramana Radhakrishnan

is now here https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2012-03-06 Please add any topics that you might consider interesting for next time. Ramana

13 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] report week 09

by Peter Maydell

Current Milestones: || || Planned || Estimate || Actual || ||cp15-rework || 2012-01-06 || 2012-??-?? || || (new blueprints & reestimate for this one pending) 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 == * ploughing through conversion of cp15 registers to new design: patchset now 20 patches long, still TODO crn={0,1,6,7,9} == other == * reviewed more Xilinx Zynq model patches * looking at BE8 support: Paul Brook has posted some patches to support this in user mode * LP:944645: fixed bug where we weren't clearing the IT bits when entering an M profile exception handler * sent out an arm-devs.next pullreq * trying to track down why linux-user is failing brk() and thus causing bash segfaults

13 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

[RFC] NEON vs. ARM register selection

by Andrew Stubbs

Hi All, As you know, the compiler currently has difficulties choosing between whether to do an operation in NEON or not. As I see it there are three problems: 1. Simply, is it profitable? NEON can do many DImode operations in one or two instructions where 2 to 10 normal ARM/Thumb instructions would be required (not to mention the added register pressure), but there is a cost associated with moving the inputs to NEON, and the results back. If the data can stay in NEON for more than one operation, then that's even better. If the data must be loaded from memory, and the result stored back to memory, then it's only a question of whether the register space is available, or not. Currently these decisions are made in the IRA/reload passes. 2. Values that originate in hard-registers stay there. This applies to function parameters, mostly, but also in general where the result of an operation is allocated first. If there is no instruction that can use the value there then the value is 'reloaded' to a more suitable register. If there is any alternative that avoids the move then the register allocator will use it, regardless of the relatives costs of the other alternatives. This problem is reduced where an operation and move can happen in one instruction, but NEON instructions do not do this much. We can write insns that appear to do it, but these output multiple instructions (see my recent core-SI=>NEON-DI extend patch). 3. It all happens too late. The decision whether to use NEON or not is not made until register allocation time. Naturally this means that most of the optimization passes are already completed. Part of the problem is that the operation almost certainly needs splitting (into whatever form was chosen) and this might not be straight forward, post-reload. (However, the split1 pass is already quite late, so perhaps this isn't such a big deal.) Another part of the problem is that passes such as the two lower-subreg passes make assumptions about the register width which are not accurate if the operation is to end up in NEON. There are other, lesser problems, such as it being hard to adjust the costs for different cores (A8 in particular) and the cost of generating an immediate constant can't be known until it's known what instructions will be used to generate it. These problems are not specific to NEON, of course. I believe IWMMXT suffers from the same issues. Likewise the C6X port, and also the i386 MMX to some degree. Anything that has instructions that only operate on a subset of registers, basically. So, Bernd has suggested an outline of a solution. I've quizzed him on this, added a few of my own ideas, and probably a good selection of misunderstandings, bad assumptions, and general cock ups, and come up with something I can write here for comment. I can post something to upstream later if it doesn't get totally shot down now. The basic idea is that we add a new RTL optimization pass (or two) that assesses the usage of pseudo registers, and makes recommendations about what register class each should end up in, if there's a choice. These recommendations would then be used by later passes to get a better use of NEON. I might call this the "prealloc" pass, or something. Firstly, for each pseudo-register in a function, the pass would look at the insn constraints for each "def" and "use", and see how the registers relate to one another. This might determine things like "if rN is in class A, then rM must be also in class A". E.g. if you have two registers with constraints like this: "r,w" "r,w" .. (and 'r' and 'w' do not overlap) then you know that there is a choice between one mode or another, whereas this: "r,w,r,w" "r,w,w,r" .. would impose no restrictions and we can carry on as normal. Having done that we'd end up with sets of pseudo-registers that must make a decision one way or the other, and we'd know where the operations are that would force a move from one class to the other. There's a fair amount of handwavium in there at present, because I've not worked out what to do with overlapping register classes (think VFP_LO_REGS) and all the other complications. Secondly, the pass would consider the costs of each alternative, and store a recommended register class for each pseudo-register in a table somewhere. It would also create new pseudos and insert extra move instructions at the register file boundaries where an existing register would have had split recommendations (this would solve problem 2 above). Again, there's handwavium in "consider the costs". This isn't too hard for size-optimization (assuming the "length" attributes on the insn is correct), but more difficult for speed optimization. Factors to include would be the move costs (here the A8 issues would be addresses) and the relative speeds of the operations in both alternatives. Also, the various possible transition points between the two modes might need some comparisons. Thirdly, the subsequent passes would need to be modified, as would some of the back-end bits and bobs. 1. Lower-subreg would need to detect 'word_mode' based on the recommended register class, not the global value. 2. The many split patterns in the machine description could be adjusted so that, instead of simply conditionalizing on "reload_completed", they split at split1 if that's the best option. (Maybe it would be profitable to insert a new, earlier split pass specifically for this case to take advantage of the likes of combine? I mean, ideally this decision would have been made at expand time, if it could have been?) It might be useful to *not* split too soon, in some cases, so that the register allocator can still make the final decision based on register pressure, and whatever other factors it uses. Of course, the existing late-split option would need to be retained in case the prealloc pass is disabled, in any case. 3. Various passes would have to be taught not to remove seemingly superfluous register moves where they actually move between register classes. 4. Pretty much nothing would need doing to register allocation! The extra moves should make allocation a register pressure management issue, rather than a question of making it work. DImode operations preallocated to core-registers may already have been lowered, one way or the other (by split1) so there's no decision left there, and if no lowering was necessary then that option ought to be obviously cheaper. If it insists on making contrary decisions then it can be taught to use the recommendation as a hint, perhaps? In specific problem cases it would also be possible to use instruction attributes to disable (or strongly discourage) certain alternatives based on the recommended class. 5. The existing 'onlya8'/'nota8' nonsense can be removed. 6. The register move cost can be set correctly for each core. 7. If a constant is destined for a NEON register, most likely, arm_gen_constant can use the NEON immediate rules to determine the cost. There's clearly a lot of thought that needs to go into the pseudo-register scan and decision making logic, but the whole thing doesn't look like it'll boil down to very much code in the end. There's also the question of where to put the pass? Too early and you'd need to put a second one in to reassess the much changed RTL later, and too late and lower-subreg won't be able to use it. It's possible that it might be better to treat it more like the data-flow analysis where it's not actually a stand-alone pass, but rather a tool other passes can use? That might depend how computationally expensive it is. Any thoughts anyone? Might something like this actually work? Would it be worth spending the time on this? Andrew

13 years, 7 months

2
1
0 0

lp:gcc/4.7

by Andrew Stubbs

Hi Matthias, GCC 4.7.0 has branched upstream. SVN trunk is now 4.8. Could you please create lp:gcc/4.7 from the release branch. Thanks Andrew

13 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

Please pull upstream rev. 184603 into gcc-linaro 4.7

by Bernhard Rosenkränzer

Hi, 184603 fixes an ICE we're running into with Android test builds. Please pull it in ASAP so I don't have to mess with the CFLAGS as a workaround. ttyl bero

13 years, 7 months

2
2
0 0

Cross toolchain for lucid updated

by Marcin Juszkiewicz

Linaro cross toolchain backport PPA [1] got updated to recent Ubuntu 12.04 versions: - gcc 4.5.3 - gcc 4.6.2 - binutils 2.22 - eglibc 2.15 - linux 3.2 I tested both compiler versions against few packages, U-Boot and Linux 2.6.32. Those packages may also work under Ubuntu 10.10 'maverick' and 11.04 'natty' but it was not tested. Users of Ubuntu 11.10 'oneiric' may install libmpfr1ldbl package [2] and then use 'lucid' repository to install cross compiler while I will prepare packages for their version of Ubuntu. Please report any problems with those backported packages in launchpad [3][4][5]. 1. https://launchpad.net/~linaro-maintainers/+archive/toolchain 2. http://packages.ubuntu.com/lucid/libmpfr1ldbl 3. https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-4.5-armel-cross/+bugs 4. https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-4.5-armel-cross/+bugs 5. https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/armel-cross-toolchain-base/+bugs

13 years, 7 months

1
1
0 0

Status call number is unchanged

by Michael Hope

No news yet on the new conference call numbers. Let's see if the old numbers still work. -- Michael

13 years, 7 months

1
0
0 0

Spec 2000 broken?

by Andrew Stubbs

Hi Michael, I ran the benchmark tests on GCC 4.7, but the spec2000 run seems to have failed. This is both on the baseline, and on my patch. See here: http://ex.seabright.co.nz/benchmarks/gcc-linaro-4.7%2bbzr114968~ams-codesou… Andrew

13 years, 7 months

2
2
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-toolchain