- linaro-toolchain - lists.linaro.org

by Dave Martin

Hi all, I've had comments that getting hold of binaries for the linaro toolchain can be trick for people unfamiliar with the linaro tools. One reason is that we don't release binaries as such -- but a visitor browsing in through http://www.linaro.org/downloads/ won't discover this, and may waste a lot of time trying to understand launchpad etc. before coming to the conclusion that binaries either aren't available or are not easily findable. On the other hand, the cross toolchain packages are likely to be of interest to such visitors, but aren't obviously advertised -- maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but if so then new visitors to the linaro pages are likely to look in the wrong place too. Would it make sense to explain the situation more prominently so that visitors know what to expect? Something along the lines of "if you use distro x revision y, these cross-compiler packages are available" and "if you need the tools for some other environment, you need to download the source and build it for yourself". Cheers ---Dave

15 years, 3 months

13
24
0 0

Linaro GDB 7.2 2011-03 released

by Michael Hope

The Linaro Toolchain Working Group is pleased to announce the release of Linaro GDB 7.2. Linaro GDB 7.2 2011.03-0 is the fourth release in the 7.2 series. Based off the latest GDB 7.2, it includes ARM-focused bug fixes and enhancements. Interesting changes include: * Hardware watchpoint support * Backtracing while in the Linux kernel trampoline frame Hardware watchpoints use the support built into ARM devices to watch for changes in values in memory with little performance impact. A 2.6.37 or later kernel is required. The source tarball is available at: https://launchpad.net/gdb-linaro/+milestone/7.2-2011.03-0 More information on Linaro GDB is available at: https://launchpad.net/gdb-linaro -- Michael

15 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 28th February - 5th March

by Andrew Stubbs

Committed Kazu's VFP testcases patch upstream. Merged the latest from upstream GCC 4.6. Merged all the outstanding launchpad merge requests against both GCC 4.5 and 4.6. Spun the 4.5-2011.03-0 and 4.6-2011.03-0 releases. Passed the tarballs to Michael H for final testing. Brought the patch tracker up to date w.r.t. to new merges. Posted one of Dan's patches upstream for review. Decided to drop Julian's A8 alignment patch completely. I had previously discovered it provided no measurable benefit on A8, and now I've found the same for A9 (Pandaboard). There's no real improvement for any combination of -falign-* options in EEMBC. Bernd's "Discourage NEON on A8" patch also doesn't show any value in the benchmark results, but I think I've forward ported it wrong, because it should at least change the binary size, and it doesn't. I need to look into this further. I also decided I don't know enough about ARMv7, so I spent some time reading a few chapters from the ARM A.R.M. ---- Upstream patched requiring review: * Thumb2 constants: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg00652.html * ARM EABI half-precision functions http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg00874.html * ARM Thumb2 Spill Likely tweak http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg00880.html * NEON scheduling patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg01431.html * RVCT Interoperability patch http://www.mail-archive.com/gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org/msg00059.html

15 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] Feb.28 -- Mar.06

by Chung-Lin Tang

Last week: * Launchpad #711819 / PR47719: ARM minipool ICE. Followed up on discussion with Bernd and Ramana. Later posted discussion results on gcc-patches, where Richard Earnshaw took it over with a final fix. * Coremark ARMv7/v6 regressions: mostly pinpointed the exact cases where RTL simplification fails to optimize away ZERO_EXTEND expressions. Still working on how to enhance it. * TW Public Holiday on Feb.28 (Mon), was off for one day. This week: * Try to turn Coremark regression investigation into code form. * Other GCC issues.

15 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Representing interleaving and lane load/stores at the tree level

by Richard Sandiford

I've been spending this week playing around with various representations of the v{ld,st}{1,2,3,4}{,_lane} operations. I agree with Ira that the best representation would be to use built-in functions. One concern in the original discussion was that the optimisers might move the original MEM_REFs away from the call. I don't think that's a problem though. For loads, we can simply treat the whole of the accessed memory as an array, and pass the array by value. If we do that, then the call would just look like: __builtin_load_lanes (MEM_REF[(elem[N] *)ADDR]) (where, despite the C notation, the MEM_REF accesses the whole of elem[N]). It is of course possible in principle for the tree optimisers to replace this MEM_REF with another, equivalent, one, but that's OK semantically. It isn't possible for the optimisers to replace it with something like an SSA name, because arrays can't be stored in gimple registers. __builtin_load_lanes would then be used like this: combined_vectors = __builtin_load_lanes (...); vector1 = ...extract first vector from combined_vectors... vector2 = ...extract second vector from combined_vectors... .... So combined_vectors only exists for load and extract operations. The question then is: what type should it have? (At this point I'm just talking about types, not modes.) The main possibilities seemed to be: 1. an integer type Pros * Gimple registers can store integers. Cons * As Julian points out, GCC doesn't really support integer types that are wider than 2 HOST_WIDE_INTs. It would be good to remove that restriction, but it might be a lot of work, and it isn't something we'd want to take on as part of this project. * We're not really using the type as an integer. * The combination of the integer type and the __builtin_load_lanes array argument wouldn't be enough to determine the correct load operation. __builtin_load_lanes would need something like a vector count (N => vldN) argument as well. 2. a combined vector type Pros * Gimple registers can store vectors. Cons * For vld3, this would mean creating vector types with non-power- of-two vectors. GCC doesn't support those yet, and you get ICEs as soon as you try to use them. (Remember that this is all about types, not modes.) It _might_ be interesting to implement this support, but as above, it would be a lot of work. It also raises some semantic questions, such as: what is the alignment of the new vectors? Which leads to... * The alignment of the type would be strange. E.g. suppose we're loading N*2 uint32_ts into N vectors of 2 elements each. The types and alignments would be: N=2 uint32x4_t, alignment 16 N=3 uint32x6_t, alignment 8 (if we follow the convention for modes) N=4 uint32x8_t, alignment 32 We don't need alignments greater than 8 in our intended use; 16 and 32 are overkill. * We're not really using the type as a single vector, but as a collection of vectors. * The combination of the vector type and the __builtin_load_lanes array argument wouldn't be enough to determine the correct load operation. __builtin_load_lanes would need something like a vector count (N => vldN) argument as well. 3. an array of vectors type Pros * No support for new GCC features (large integers or non-power-of-two vectors) is needed. * The alignment of the type would be taken from the alignment of the individual vectors, which is correct. * It accurately reflects how the loaded value is going to be used. * The type uniquely identifies the correct load operation, without need for additional arguments. (This is minor.) Cons * Gimple registers can't store array values. So I think the only disadvantage of using an array of vectors is that the result can never be a gimple register. But that isn't much of a disadvantage really; the things we care about are the individual vectors, which can of course be treated as gimple registers. I think our tracking of memory values is good enough for combined_vectors to be treated as such (even though, with the back-end changes we talked about earlier, they will actually be stored in RTL registers). So how about the following functions? (Forgive the pascally syntax.) __builtin_load_lanes (REF : array N*M of X) returns array N of vector M of X maps to vldN in practice, the result would be used in assignments of the form: vectorX = ARRAY_REF <result, X> __builtin_store_lanes (VECTORS : array N of vector M of X) returns array N*M of X maps to vstN in practice, the argument would be populated by assignments of the form: vectorX = ARRAY_REF <result, X> __builtin_load_lane (REF : array N of X, VECTORS : array N of vector M of X, LANE : integer) returns array N of vector M of X maps to vldN_lane __builtin_store_lane (VECTORS : array N of vector M of X, LANE : integer) returns array N of X maps to vstN_lane Note that each operation can be expanded independently. The expansion doesn't rely on preceding or following statements. I've hacked up the prototype below as a proof of concept. It includes changes to the C parser to allow these functions to be created in the original source code. This is throw-away code though; it would never be submitted. I've also included a simple test case and the output I get from it. The output looks pretty good; there's not even the stray VMOV that I saw with the intrinsics earlier in the week. (Note that if you'd like to try this yourself, you'll need the patch I posted on Monday as well.) What do you think? Obviously this discussion needs to move to gcc@ at some point, but I wanted to make sure this was vaguely sane first. Richard

15 years, 3 months

2
2
0 0

A question about disabling -gtoggle in bootstrap run

by Revital1 Eres

Hello, I am looking for a way to disable '-gtoggle' flag in the run of stage 2 in bootstrap; when configuring ARM with (*). The flag seems to be applied in stage 2 but not in stage 3 which seems to cause bootstrap failure when testing SMS as in stage 2 SMS fails because of debug_insn caused by -gtoggle disturbing do-loop; while in stage 3 SMS succeeds; resulting in different .o files and bootsrtrap failure. (*) This the configure I used: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/home/eres/mainline/build --enable-checking --enable-languages=c --enable-bootstrap Thanks, Revital

15 years, 3 months

3
8
0 0

[ACTIVITY] Feb 28 - Mar 04

by Ulrich Weigand

== GDB == * Committed fix for the GDB part of #620611 (Unable to backtrace out of vector page 0xffff0000) to mainline and Linaro GDB 7.2. * Ran into GDB crashes due to memory corruption in tests involving multiple inferiors. Tracked down root cause (using valgrind) to long-standing double free bug in GDB terminal state handling code. Committed fix to mainline and Linaro GDB 7.2. * While using valgrind (see above), ran into problems: * ptrace system call is unsupported on ARM * certain variants of the "SUB from SP" Thumb-2 instruction are not handled by the VEX compiler Fixed both problems locally, and was then able to successfully valgrind GDB on ARM. * Created Linaro GDB 7.2-2011.03-0 release. * Worked on glibc patch to add ARM unwind tables to system call stubs; this will help unwinding in the absence of debug info for libc, and in particular fix #684218 (Failures in gdb.base/call-signal-resume.exp) 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

15 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] weekly status

by Ken Werner

Hi, == PandaBoard == * upgraded my ARM dev environment from Ubuntu to Linaro snapshot (20110303) * found another kernel bug on the panda (#728565) == libunwind == * resolved build issues on ARM (when using the linaro snapshot) * allows the testsuite to work with linkers that do not pull in indirect shared libs * fix build of the test-static-link test case on ARM * link libunwind-setjmp.so against libunwind-elf * posted some first patches on the libunwind ml * learned about the Exception Handling ABI for the ARM Architecture Regards Ken

15 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

[Activity] 2011-03-04 week 9

by Ramana Radhakrishnan

Starting back in Linaro land after a gap of 3-4 weeks where I've been away on ARM internal tasks. == GCC == - Setting up a new machine that I received for Linaro work. - Spent some time reviewing upstream patches. Spent some time on the P1 PR47719 upstream to get this fixed . - Starting to read up on the benchmarking report and recreating the environments. - Looked through some of the speed tickets to have a look through and spend some time on it. - Put in a hardware request for a Panda board. == Next Week == - Set up environment properly for some amount of benchmarking. - Look at some of the performance regressions and work on some things that need to be done. - Continue looking at PR47719.

15 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 2011-03-04

by David Gilbert

* Investigated and fixed sqlite3 testsuite failure on ARM (bug 725052) * Discussing libffi API changes with maintainer; hopefully he's going to send out his comments today. * Looking at how to upstream the string routine changes * Need to look at big endian testing * Testing QEmu pre-release for Peter; looking very nice. Dave

15 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] report week 09

by Peter Maydell

RAG: Red: Amber: Green: Current Milestones: | Planned | Estimate | Actual | qemu-linaro 2011-03 | 2011-03-08 | 2011-03-08 | | Historical Milestones: finish virtio-system | 2010-08-27 | postponed | | finish testing PCI patches | 2010-10-01 | 2010-10-22 | 2010-10-18 | successful ARM qemu pull req | 2010-12-16 | 2010-12-16 | 2010-12-16 | finish qemu-cont-integration | 2011-01-25 | 2011-01-25 | handed off | first qemu-linaro release | 2011-02-08 | 2011-02-08 | 2011-02-08 | == maintain-beagle-models == * preparation and test for next week's qemu-linaro 2011-03 release * put in a temporary fix for bug 723630 (apt/glibc now try prlimit64 syscall, so silence qemu warnings about not implementing it) * investigated qemu warnings about bad 16 bit writes: this is a kernel bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/linux-linaro/+bug/727781 == vexpress model == * sent vexpress patches upstream, put into qemu-linaro == merge-correctness-fixes == * more work on performance counter registers: proper cycle counter implementation; now just needs a bit of tidying before upstreaming * ran valgrind's test cases on qemu; added revealed issues to https://blueprints.launchpad.net/qemu-linaro/+spec/merge-correctness-fixes * sent patch fixing broken VMOV s0,s1,r0,r1 implementation * sent patch fixing inverted carry bit on ORNS == other == * meetings: toolchain, standup, architecture q&a, pdsw-tools, team brief Current qemu patch status is tracked here: https://wiki.linaro.org/PeterMaydell/QemuPatchStatus Absences: 17/18 March: QEMU Users Forum, Grenoble Holiday: 22 Apr - 2 May 9-13 May: UDS, Budapest (maybe) ~17-19 August: QEMU/KVM strand at LinuxCon NA, Vancouver

15 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] Weekly status

by Richard Sandiford

== This week == * Submitted the fix for the Qt miscompilation upstream. Applied after approval. * Submitted a patch for the Thumb LDR problem that Dave Martin hit. This was rejected. * Ended up spending a few days on the "unreasonable amount of memory while compiling qemu" bug due to unfamiilarity with the DWARF 2 code. I realise the original idea was that I'd just file this upstream, but it was one of those cases where I kept finding out more info for the bug report until the problem became obvious. I've now submitted two patches for this upstream. The first was trivial and is now in. I was asked to add a bit of extra code to the second, which I hope to do next week. * Looked at the MIPS bug that was reported against the Linaro toolchain. This turned out to be a problem in our extension elimination pass. Submitted a merge request for that. * Got confirmation from ARM that we should use relocation number 160 for R_ARM_IRELATIVE, and that it was OK to make the changes public (thanks!). I've now submitted the binutils patches upstream. I'll do the eglibc ones when I get back. == Next week == Holiday! Richard

15 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] February 27- March 3

by Revital1 Eres

Hello, Testing the patch for SMS to support targets that their doloop part is not decoupled from the rest of the loop's instructions, as SMS currently requires. The testing includes bootstrapping on ARM machines for c language configured w and w\o --with-arch=armv7-a options and using"-O2 -fmodulo-sched -fmodulo-sched-allow-regmoves -fno-auto-inc-dec -funsafe-math-optimizations -mthumb" flags. Thanks, Revital

15 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

GCC PR43137

by Andrew Stubbs

On Monday, I was asked to find out whether the fix for GCC Bugzilla PR43137 was present in our source base. I can confirm that it is *not* present. Apologies for the delay. Andrew

15 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

What configuration(s) to test?

by Andrew Stubbs

Hi All, Up until now, I have had no choice but to test toolchain correctness on A8 hardware. It made sense to use the same -mfpu settings as the Linaro/Ubuntu package builds use. This did not match the policy that the interesting platform was A9-NEON, but I didn't have that option. That's changed now - our Panda boards have arrived! Yay! :) But, it seems to me that if I change to using the Pandas for correctness testing (not performance testing) then I won't be testing what Ubuntu will actually use. So what should I test on? I'd rather not double my test load by testing on both, but that is an option .... Any suggestions? Andrew

15 years, 4 months

2
1
0 0

Re: Thumb-2 kernel on imx51/efikamx

by Dave Martin

Hi, On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre(a)linaro.org> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, John Rigby wrote: > >> The resulting kernel builds and boots but some modules have problems: >> >> $ modprobe fat >> fat: unknown relocation: 102 >> FATAL: Error inserting vfat > > A workaround for what appears to be a binutils bug has been merged in > linaro-2.6.38. So the Thumb2 kernel testing may resume on trusted > targets. Thanks for merging it. It's a bit ugly to include turn off compiler optimisations to work around this though, so we might encounter upstream to that patch. In any case, we still need someone to take a look at the possible tools issue -- CC'ing linaro-toolchain in case people aren't aware: https://bugs.launchpad.net/binutils-linaro/+bug/725126 Cheers ---Dave

15 years, 4 months

2
1
0 0

Re: [RFC] Linaro Toolchain for Android and NDK

by Jim Huang

On 25 February 2011 22:28, Alexander Sack <asac(a)linaro.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Jim Huang <jserv(a)0xlab.org> wrote: >> I would like to make a proposal about utilizing Linaro toolchain for >> Android and NDK (Native Development Kit)[1]. Added linaro-toolchai list in Cc. >> ** Motivation >> >> There are some different perspectives between Linaro toolchain and >> Google Android toolchain including technical and >> non-technical considerations. It doesn't really work if we only >> replace prebuilt toolchain with Linaro toolchain because >> of the compatibility of Android system utilities such as ELF >> prelinker. Also, since Android is developed in relatively closed > > I don't have enough background to understand this "ELF prelinker" > stuff. Are you saying that because of the way how android links stuff > we cannot have one code base for gcc that works for both, android and > "normal libc linux"? > Take Bug #707487 for example: https://bugs.launchpad.net/binutils-linaro/+bug/707487 It is evident that Android's system utilities like soslim ("strip" implementation) and apriori ("prelink" implementation) expect the specific output of GNU Toolchain, but it sometimes varies since we would take Linaro's toolchain. >> environment (Google style open source model), a great amount of >> software components are not always verified by different >> toolchain or build configurations. This proposal attempts to > > ack. thats what we want to do. Of course, we cannot really verify what > is going on behind closed walls, but we can continuously build android > with our toolchain and fix issues due that in android public master > and if even that doesn't work we can ensure that our android trees > always work nicely with both, our gcc and android gcc. > Android team is known to work on this field already. > Another thing is to make our toolchain easily consumable (like the NDK > you mention at the bottom); this will increase chances that someone > from google can eventually take a look at what we are doing etc. and > also helps the community to use linaro toolchain to built their > android distributions. Agree. >> establish the compact development flow to enable Linaro >> optimized ARM toolchain to build Android from scratch and verify it >> transparently. Eventually, Android can be the reference >> indicator as Linaro toolchain performance and reliability. >> >> >> ** Brief introduction to Google Android toolchain >> >> Inside Google, there is a dedicated compiler team working on GNU >> Toolchain for various purposes including server-side >> computing, Android, Chrome OS, etc. Google engineers submit patches to >> upstream for public review and maintain the >> toolchain for Android. Along with each Android Open Source Prokect >> (AOSP) release, there is a special branch in korg >> GIT [2] for hosting the GPL'd toolchain source code modified by >> Google. Usually, file "README.google" mentioned the >> summary, but it is not developer friendly because several changes were >> done within one GIT commit. >> >> Please refer to wiki for details: >> https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/Android/UpstreamToolchain >> > > thats a good wiki page. thanks for the content. If I read the skia > example correctly, we could add a test to our "normal" abrek testsuite > that uses our daily android toolchain and run the skia benchmark? e.g. > we could start doing this benchmarking even without having a > validation solution ready for android targets? > If adb is supposed to work well on target, then you can easily use "bench.py" script mentioned in the above wiki to do several benchmarking. > Please let's talk to Paul how we can get the android toolchain to > /opt/android as part of abrek and lets try to add this to our abrek > testsuites. Until we have daily toolchain builds it would be OK to > download the android toolchain tarball from a fixed place from > people.linaro.org I guess. > Ok! >> ** What's wrong with Android upstream Toolchain? >> >> In my opinion, list as following: >> >> (1) Few information about Google improvement: Sometimes, we have to >> guess something from implicit GIT commitlog >> such as "commit gcc-4.4.3 which is used to build gcc-4.4.3 Android >> toolchain in master"[3]. It is hard to track and get >> verified carefully. > > yes, that feels like a messy situation. Do we know why they don't > commit the changes as individual commits but then in next step > document what they changed? I have no exact idea since I am just an observer regarding Android's GIT tree. Google engineers do send patches to FSF/GNU, but it is not always related to the GIT activities we have seen in korg. You can search the keyword, "submit", in file gcc/gcc-4.4.3/README.google , and you will see some descriptions as following: gcc/cp/cp-lang.c gcc/gimple.c gcc/langhooks-def.h gcc/langhooks.h gcc/langhooks.c gcc/tree-flow.h gcc/tree-ssa-dce.c gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/vptr_init_dse.C gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/vptr_init_dse2.C Enhancing dead code elimination to eliminate useless vptr field initialization. Owner: davidxl Status: not submitted gcc/fold-const.c gcc/Makefile.in Fix 2045297 Owner: davidxl Status: Not submitted The information is too few to track for us since the above "Fix 2045297" tends to indicate Google bug database number instead of FSF's. >> (2) Google specific improvements are absent in recent release, only >> enabled months later. For example, Google Compiler >> Team Lead, Dr. Shih-wei Liao, presented the improvements against GNU >> Toolchain in the middle of 2009.[4]. The report >> came with several impressive improvements like FDO (Feedback Directed >> Optimizations) and IPO (Inter-Procedure >> Optimizations). However, only some of them are public to AOSP and be >> integrated late in the middle of 2010 (Android >> Froyo; 2.2). Even FDO was merged in Android Froyo already, but there >> is few documentation and no robust method to verify >> by community members such as Linaro engineers. > > you say that they don't publish the code for lets say the > "gingerbread" toolchain in a timely fashion when they release > gingerbread? Or do they ship a separate "fast" NDK/prebuilt for > partners through secret channels? I have no idea. >> (3) For some reasons, Google tends to deliver stable (old) toolchain >> plus mainline backport. It is a safe and workable approach, >> but sometimes developers would expect to use the latest technologies >> as Linaro aims to bring to the world. >> >> (4) Few readable documentation. For example, Google already open its >> toolchain benchmark suite in early 2010, but there was >> no document specific to such important components. Furthermore, there >> was one file gone in public kog GIT, required by >> automated benchmark process. One year later, Google engineer finally >> put back the one to public. This implies the unusual way >> Google developed and delivered software. >> > > Assuming good faith I would think this might just have been an oversight. > > Do you know if anyone from community pointed this out to google using > official android mailing lists/groups or a bug? > Google engineers sometimes pick up the issues from Google Code: http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/list And, they do discuss on mailing-list: http://developer.android.com/community/ >> ** Linaro's Approach to enable latest technologies >> >> Linaro android team tries to do: >> (1) Document Android toolchain and related utilities in korg GIT as >> possible as we can. > > That's good stuff and I think your wiki page is already a great > contribution in that direction. What we should do though is run this > through google eyes early by using official android mailing lists. > Got it. >> (2) Early adaptation of Linaro toolchain to Android build system and >> verify these output systematically. > > ack. Do you know if those changes would be conflicting with what we do > on "normal" linux side? e.g. do we need to maintain special android > patches or can we merge those into our main trees? > In fact, GCC 4.6 already merges Android specific patches with the help of CodeSourcery. We would initially backport these patches to linaro-gcc-4.5 branch for review. Luse Cheng already did it. However, other parts are not related to Android directly, and they might be too aggressive to generic GCC optimization, that can be the reason why Google didn't submit first. >> (3) Backport Google changes to Linaro GCC and review in public. > > This is really tricky as you said. Here again, we should propose this > on android mailing lists to maybe get feedback from google team and > maybe improve the way we work on that. Untangling a big patch based > just on changelog feels really unefficient. Ok, I got your point. However, what we need is to create workable combination of Linaro kernel + Linaro toolchain for Android integration engineers. Alexander, I need your help to catch the attention of someone at Google. > Also, we have to remember that if we pick changes out of _their_ tree, > we cannot upstream those to fsf because we don't own copyright to > those. Of course, for stuff they already pushed to 4.6 its not a > problem to backport them from fsf trunk. Thanks for notice. >> (4) Improve the deployment and validation flow by means of Linaro >> infrastructure. > > my understanding is this: > > 1. we add support to build android toolchain from linaro branches to > our cloud build service > 2. we do this so that we either produce a full toolchain tarball that > can be installed under /opt/android or a NDK tarball (or both) NDK doesn't need admin permission to install. > 3. we improve our android platform build infrastructure to allow > using latest daily toolchain tarball and then we build android with a) > google toolchain and b) linaro toolchain; in this way we get daily > android builds for both toolchains that can go into the linaro > validation farm and get the typical validation/testing and > benchmarking done. Yes, it would be great. >> (5) Build and test Android system with Linaro tools. Then, figure out >> the regressions caused by Linaro Toolchain and/or >> aggressive optimizations > > right. I think that's covered with the point above, no? The android > builds done with our toolchain would also be available in public, so > you can do whatever you want on top of what we already > test/validate/measure automatically in the validation farm with them. Agree. >> (6) measure performance gain by Linaro tools > > right. for this we need to define a set of open-source benchmarks to > run and ensure that those are supported in our validation framework. > >> The detailed specification in wiki: >> https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/Android/Specs/LinaroAndroidToolchain >> >> ** Implementation of Linaro toolchain for Android >> >> We started from Android style toolchain build and move to Linaro GCC + >> ARM specific optimizations in mind. The initial work >> can be obtained by wiki: >> https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/Android/Toolchain >> >> We plan to maintain the following GIT repositories at least: >> * android/toolchain/build.git : Linaro-aware build system. Derived >> from Android toolchain build system, it can handle Linaro-GCC >> and Linaro snapshot/bzr. >> * android/toolchain/gcc-patches.git : Patchset to be applied on top >> of Linaro-GCC release/snapshots > > I think thats fine. however, how do we ensure that we have patches > that always apply to both release/snapshots? do we maintain branches > for gcc-patches.git in case you need two versions of patch X if the > linaro gcc codebase diverged? I might need help from toolchain WG. >> The reference builder script output: >> $ ./linaro-build.sh --help >> --prefix-dir= Specify where to install (default: >> /tmp/android-toolchain-eabi) >> --gcc-src-dir= Specify where linaro gcc source is (in <toolchain>/gcc) >> --apply-gcc-patch=(yes|no) Apply-patch which in >> <toolchain>/gcc-patches directory (default: no) >> >> Current verified combinations: >> * gcc-linaro: 4.5-2011.02-0 >> * binutils: 2.20.1 >> * gmp: 4.2.4 >> * mpfr: 2.4.1 >> >> Only gcc is replaced by gcc-linaro: 4.5-2011.02-0 and others are >> checked out from korg GIT. > > do we need to do something like --gcc-src-dir and -patches for > binutils, gmp and mpfr as well? or would we be only interested in > improving/fixing gcc for now? > I think focusing on linaro-gcc is pretty good. We can follow the original combination of Google. > Waybe we also want to support protocol schemes like git: http: and > bzr+ssh:/lp: for the --gcc-src= argument. this would then > automatically download/branch the source tree from the given location. > What do you think? Agree. >> ** Summary of gcc-patches >> >> "gcc-patches" are used as "backport" from Google changes into Linaro >> gcc base. Here is the summary at present: >> >> 0001-Add-linux-android.patch >> Add linux-android >> >> 0002-Add-support-for-Bionic-C-library.patch >> Add support for Bionic C library >> >> 0003-Support-compilation-for-Android-platform.patch >> Support compilation for Android platform >> >> 0004-Add-multilib-configuration-for-arm-linux-androideabi.patch >> Add multilib configuration for arm-linux-androideabi >> >> 0005-Fix-gthr-posix.h-to-support-Bionic.patch >> Fix gthr-posix.h to support Bionic >> >> 0006-Add-untested-support-for-Bionic-to-libstdc.patch >> Add [untested] support for Bionic to libstdc++ >> >> These patches are taken from Maxim Kuvyrkov of CodeSourcery in gcc-4.6 >> branch. Of course, we can always add changes by >> Google or other Android specific adaptation by this model. > > Can we get a toolchain example tarball done and uploaded to > people.linaro.org? I would like to verify that those work out of the > box with gingerbread and if so, i would like to see those land in the > main toolchain WG branch rather than adding them to our gcc-patches > tree. Yes, I would like to do that later. >> ** Planned improvements over Linaro toolchain for Android >> >> (1) GCC multilib setting >> Default: arm, fpu and thumb. The prebuilt google toolchain use: >> armv5te and mandroid. We should focus on ARMv7. >> (2) HardFP-ABI Support for Android. >> (3) Patch management: Better to get the Android patches into >> Linaro-GCC tree eventually. >> (4) Build system improvement. Don't have to build gmp, mpfr everytime, >> and provide option to build without gdb. >> (5) Enable LTO (Link Time Optimization, introduced since gcc-4.5) in >> Android TARGET_GLOBAL_CFLAGS >> (6) Verify the functionality of FDO (Feedback Directed Optimization) >> and introduce the approaches to integrate. > > I really think those topics should be executed by the toolchain WG > rather than in platform. I am happy that we give them guidance and > support them by providing them with easy to use tools to get their job > done. Also feeding them with topics is great. Please talk to Michael > Hope and ask him how he wants to collect those android toolchain > optimization topic ideas. Could be good input for our 11.11 > requirements gathering process. Agree. >> ** Toward Android NDK >> >> Once Linaro toolchain for Android is ready to use, it is time to >> re-package Android NDK by Linaro toolchain. To do that, extra >> build configuration, sysroot, is required. According to Android >> Release Cycle & Phases[5], the repacked NDK should be verified >> one moth after Android public release. > > That sounds like a great idea. What's the a benefit/difference of > shipping an NDK compared to just shipping a "normal" toolchain binary > tarball for this purpose? NDK consists of some architecture specific helper scripts/headers to indicate the optimization flags and some combinations such as ARMv7 with/without NEON, etc. If we provide NDK directly, users don't have to consider the above integration issues as far as I know. Sincerely, Jim Huang (jserv) Android Team

15 years, 4 months

2
2
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 21st - 26th February

by Andrew Stubbs

Temporarily took over Tech Lead of the Toolchain Working Group while Michael Hope recovers from the Christchurch earthquake. (He's fine, but unable to work.) This didn't actually require any action, in the end. Michael returned to work towards the end of the week. Forward ported, benchmarked, and posted one of Mark Shinwell's NEON patches upstream. Further benchmarking was not possible as the Panda board I was using is located in Christchurch, NZ. Merged and tested the FSF GCC 4.5 branch into Linaro GCC. There were a couple of test regressions in the fortran testsuite, so I've filed bug lp:723086. The other test results were either the same or better. Benchmarked the ARM A8 function/jump alignment patch to see what effect it has in GCC 4.6. Found no measurable improvement in EEMBC. I suggest dropping this patch. Brought the patch tracker up-to-date, and entered tracking tickets for all outstanding patches. Merged FSF trunk to Linaro GCC 4.6. Committed Jie's Thumb2 testcase fix to FSF GCC trunk. Thanks to Ramana for using his new found authority to approve it. Investigated the suitability of several of the patches for forward-porting. Corresponded with Benrd and Julian. ---- Upstream patched requiring review: * Thumb2 constants: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg00652.html * Kazu's VFP testcases: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg00128.html * ARM EABI half-precision functions http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg00874.html * ARM Thumb2 Spill Likely tweak http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg00880.html * NEON scheduling patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg01431.html

15 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] Feb 21 -- Feb 27

by Chung-Lin Tang

== Last week == * Launchpad #721021 GCC ICE on ARM/XScale: identified as case of upstream PR45177; backported and pushed to Linaro. * Launchpad #709453/CS Issue #7122: Neon vmov 0.0 issues; some progress on my current WIP patch, but tests showed another 3 regressions, still on-going. * Launchpad #711819/GCC PR47719: ICE in push_minipool_fix. Ramana reminded that my patch, which added some pool range attributes, were actually removed earlier by Bernd in the fix for PR43137. Discussed and mostly concluded that we should add them back for now. Will re-submit patch with testcase to gcc-patches this week. * Coremark ARMv7-A regressions: still work in progress. == This week == * TW Public Holiday Feb.28 (Mon). * Ping some of my upstream patch submissions. * Get incompleted issues done. * Coremark regression investigation.

15 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

GCC M4 DSP support

by Christian ANDERSSON2

Hello Linaro toolchain guys, I have a few questions regarding GCC fully supporting the ARM Cortex M4, I'm especially thinking of the additional DSP instructions and if these are supported and how optimal the code being produced is? Thanks for your support, Best Regards Christian (ST-Ericsson)

15 years, 4 months

2
1
0 0

[ACTIVITY] weekly status

by Ken Werner

Hi, == Investigate developer tools == * Finished latrace investigation. == PandaBoard == * The defective PandaBoard that was sent back in December is now repaired and on my desk again. It doesn't show the behaviour of #708883 and works flawlessly so far. :) == libunwind == * Did some debugging of the test-async-sig testcase to get started with libunwind. It will dead-lock if you add "--enable-debug" since libunwind does printfs in this case which are not signal safe. * Sorted out which of Zachs patches are upstream and which are not. * Started to learn about the different unwind methods that libunwind provides on ARM. Regards Ken

15 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] 2011-02-25

by David Gilbert

== ffi == * Sent variadic patch for libffi to libffi-discuss * Worked through some suggestions from Chung-Lin, need to do some rework == string routines == * memchr & strchr patch sent for inclusion in ubuntu packages * tried sqlite's benchmarks - they don't spend too much time in the C library; although a few % in memcpy, and ~1% in memset (also seem to have found an sqlite test case failure on ARM and filed as bug 725052) == porting jam == * There wasn't much traffic on #linaro during this related to the jam * I closed bug 635850 (fastdep FTBFS) which was already fixed with an explicit fix for ARM in the changelog and bug 492336 (eglibc's tst-eintr1 failing) which seems to work now but it's not clear when it was fixed. * Looking at eglibc's test log there seem to be a bunch of others that are failing and may well be worth investigating. * bug 372121 (qemu/xargs stack/number of arguments limit) seems to work ok, however the reporter did say it was quite a fragile test; that needs more investigation to see whether the original reason has actually been fixed. == misc == * swapping notes with Peter on the PBX SD card investigation Dave

15 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] report week 08

by Peter Maydell

RAG: Red: Amber: Green: Current Milestones: | Planned | Estimate | Actual | qemu-linaro 2011-03 | 2011-03-08 | 2011-03-08 | | Historical Milestones: finish virtio-system | 2010-08-27 | postponed | | finish testing PCI patches | 2010-10-01 | 2010-10-22 | 2010-10-18 | successful ARM qemu pull req | 2010-12-16 | 2010-12-16 | 2010-12-16 | finish qemu-cont-integration | 2011-01-25 | 2011-01-25 | handed off | first qemu-linaro release | 2011-02-08 | 2011-02-08 | 2011-02-08 | == maintain-beagle-models == * rebased qemu-linaro on upstream * checked omap_uart model for any issues with enabling the extended (non-16550A) features which the new Linux drivers need. Sent meego merge request for patchset which turns on the features, and does a little cleanup. Now in meego, qemu-linaro. == merge-correctness-fixes == * reviewed versions 5 and 6 of Christophe's vrecpe/vsqrte patchset; v6 was good and has now been committed * sent a version of "dummy cp14 debug registers" patch upstream; however I've realised it triggers a false positive in the temp-leak debugging code in target-arm/translate.c * wrote/sent a patch which moves this temp-leak debugging code into TCG proper (which I think makes it much simpler and cleaner and avoids the false positives mentioned above) * some work on the cp15 performance counter registers. I now have some code which I think is a fully architecturally valid implementation of an "implements no events" core, except that we don't implement the cycle count register. * started testing/review of Adam's VA-to-PA translation regs patch. In the course of this discovered that qemu unconditionally implements an ARM940 cp15 WFI register which clashes with these; submitted patch to add correct not-for-v6/v7 feature gating. * sent out patch fixing usermode seeks by 32 bit guest on 64 bit host (based on a diagnosis and suggested fix by Eoghan Sherry) * sent patch fixing compile error in vnc code == vexpress model == * sent a patchset for fixing the MMC card detect wiring on PBX upstream; this is needed for vexpress too * finished vexpress cleanup and cross-checking against the docs; I now have a patchset I'm happy to upstream and will post next week == other == * took part in pgp keysigning event with emdebian folks * meetings: toolchain, PDSW-tools Current qemu patch status is tracked here: https://wiki.linaro.org/PeterMaydell/QemuPatchStatus Absences: 17/18 March: QEMU Users Forum, Grenoble Holiday: 22 Apr - 2 May 9-13 May: UDS, Budapest (maybe) ~17-19 August: QEMU/KVM strand at LinuxCon NA, Vancouver

15 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] Feb 21 - Feb 25

by Ulrich Weigand

== GDB == * Worked with Will Deacon and the Linaro kernel team to make sure HW watchpoint and Versatile Express errata fixes are included in the upcoming Linaro kernel release. * Committed GDB HW watchpoint patches to mainline, and backport to Linaro GDB. This completes work on the HW watchpoint blueprint. * Worked on fixing the GDB part of #620611 (Unable to backtrace out of vector page 0xffff0000). Posted (two versions of) mainline patch for discussion. * Worked on kernel patch for #615974 (Interrupted system call handling). 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

15 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

[ACTIVITY] Weekly status

by Richard Sandiford

== This week == * Looked at the poor code generated for Neon load/store intrinsics. Looked into the history behind the treatment of VFP registers by CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS. Peter confirmed that the restrictions apply only to VFPv1. Wrote a patch to improve the code, which partly overlapped with Julian's. * Looked at how the operations should be represented at the tree level. Experimented with various combinations of tree codes and types to see which felt right. Wrote this up in the message I sent today. == Next week == * More vectorisation. * Submit some queued patches. * Maybe some bug fixing. (I see there's a reload bug just waiting to be claimed by a lucky developer.) On holiday the following week. Richard

15 years, 4 months

1
0
0 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-toolchain