== This week ==
Started looking at STT_GNU_IFUNC support in BFD. There were a couple
of janitorial changes I needed to make in order to prepare elf32-arm.c
for the main patch. I tested those separately and submitted them upstream:
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-11/msg00330.htmlhttp://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-11/msg00331.html
I've now finished a prototype implementation of the STT_GNU_IFUNC
support itself. It wasn't as mechanical as I'd originally assumed,
which was nice.
Tests that I've run by hand seem to be doing the right thing.
I've now started writing tests for the testsuite (meaning:
I've completed 1 test so far).
== Next week ==
* Add more tests, including Thumb coverage.
* Start on the libc changes.
Richard
Doing an allmodconfig build on the kernel, I get the following:
CC arch/arm/kernel/asm-offsets.s
In file included from
/home/rob/proj/git/linux-2.6-dt/include/linux/kernel.h:12,
from
/home/rob/proj/git/linux-2.6-dt/include/linux/sched.h:54,
from
/home/rob/proj/git/linux-2.6-dt/arch/arm/kernel/asm-offsets.c:13:
/usr/lib/gcc/arm-linux-gnueabi/4.4.5/include/stdarg.h:40: internal
compiler error: Segmentation fault
It occurs on Maverick 4.4, 4.5 and CodeSourcery 2009Q1 cross toolchains.
It's confirmed by Codesourcery here:
http://www.codesourcery.com/archives/arm-gnu/msg03719.html
What's the status on this issue? I didn't see anything in Linaro gcc
bugs that looks related.
Rob
The STT_GNU_IFUNC blueprint:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Specs/Binutils-STT_GNU_IFUNC
says "the ARM EABI will be updated to support STT_GNU_IFUNC's requirements".
I suppose the most obvious thing that needs to be defined is the relocation
number for R_ARM_IRELATIVE. What's the best way of handling that?
The main options seem to be:
1. Reserve a relocation number with ARM first (129?).
2. Go ahead and implement it without having the EABI updated.
See whether the results are good before deciding whether
to bless it in the EABI.
3. Since STT_GNU_IFUNC is a GNU-specific, treat R_ARM_IRELATIVE
as GNU-specific too, and pinch one of the R_ARM_PRIVATE relocs.
I'm pretty sure (3)'s not the way to go, but I was aiming for
completeness. :-)
Richard
Hi,
On 17 November 2010 05:35, Michael Hope <michael.hope(a)linaro.org> wrote:
> 1. How easy is it to frequently merge in SVN? It used to be terrible
> as you had to manually track the merges. These days can you do a 'svn
> merge trunk' and have it just work?
I asked Mike Meissner to answer this question. Mike is very experienced in
GCC and GCC SVN branch management. I am attaching his reply.
Ira
I sent this recently to ppc64-toolchain(a)linux.ibm.com on how to use
svnmerge to manage branches:
This script (also ~meissner/meissner/bin.sh/svnmerge) is what I use to
update svn directories, such as ibm-gcc-4_5-branch. I think I originally
got it
from Ben E. and it may be in the contrib directory.
Typically the way I start a branch, such as my normal power7-meissner
branch, I do the following:
$ export TRUNK="svn+ssh://@gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk"
$ export BNAME="power7-meissner"
$ export BRANCH="svn+ssh://@gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/ibm/$BNAME"
$ export SRC="$HOME/fsf-src"
$ svn delete -m"delete old branch" $BRANCH
$ svn copy -m"Clone new branch" $TRUNK $BRANCH
$ cd $SRC
$ svn co $BRANCH
$ cd $BNAME
$ svnmerge init
$ svn update # this is sometimes needed
$ svn commit -m'Create svnmerge init info'
$ export REV="xxxx" # substitute subversion id for xxxxx
$ echo "power7-meissner branch, based on $REV." > gcc/REVISION
$ touch gcc/ChangeLog.power7
$ <edit gcc/ChangeLog.power to create initial contents>
$ svn add gcc/ChangeLog.power gcc/REVISION
$ svn commit -m'Add REVISION to branch'
In particular, creating GCC/REVISION allows you to tell what subversion
revision the source is based against. You can find the information via:
$ svn propget svnmerge-integrated
but it is a lot easier if you have a compiler tree to do gcc -v. After you
do a propget, you will need to do a svn update.
In this case, I use gcc/ChangeLog.power7 to hold the ChangeLog entries
local to the branch. That way I can see a summary of the changes, but not
pollute
the normal ChangeLog files.
To do merges, you need to make sure that all local changes are checked into
the branch. Then do:
$ cd $SRC/$BNAME
$ svnmerge merge
$ <edit gcc/REVISION and ChangeLog.power7 to indicate merge>
$ <test merged files, if satisified, check them in>
$ export REV="xxxx" # substitute subversion id for xxxxx
$ svn update # just in case
$ svn commit -m"Update to subversion id $REV"
Now, to create a patch file do, make sure the files are checked in:
$ cd $SRC/$BNAME
$ export PATCHFILE="$HOME/patches/mypatch.patch01"
$ <make ChangeLog entries in $PATCHFILE>
$ svn diff --old $TRUNK --new . -r $REV >> $PATCHFILE
$ <delete ChangeLog.power7, REVISION, property changes from $PATCHFILE>
$ submit patch
To see if there are changes to be merge in:
$ svnmerge avail
For example on the ibm-gcc-4_5-branch, the following changes are available
to be merged in: 164657-166510 when I originally wrote this message on the
9th
of November, and Peter has subsequently updated the merge.
I put the folliwng in ~/.subversion/config to provide my own diff command:
### Set diff-cmd to the absolute path of your 'diff' program.
### This will override the compile-time default, which is to use
### Subversion's internal diff implementation.
diff-cmd = /home/meissner/bin.sh/svndiff
Every so often, I find svnmerge misses, for example in deleting
directories.
It is helpful to do a diff from the mainline every so often to make sure
you are not missing newly created files or still are keeping older files or
just missed a change.
I'll include svndiff for the smarter svndiff command and mrm-changelog.el
that looks for the ChangeLog.<name> files I use in different branches. Feel
free to contact me to clarify some stuff.
--
Michael Meissner, IBM
5 Technology Place Drive, M/S 2757, Westford, MA 01886-3141, USA
meissner(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com fax +1 (978) 399-6899
(See attached file: svnmerge)(See attached file: svndiff)(See attached
file: mrm-changelog.el)
Hi there,
There's a recording of this mornings public plan review available on
the wiki at:
https://wiki.linaro.org/Releases/1105/PublicPlanReview
Also included is a copy of the slides and supporting documents. Might
be interesting for those who missed it.
-- Michael
A heads up. I'd like to have a brainstorming session on potential
Thumb-2 performance improvements in GCC. Think about what you'd like
in such a session, and what preperation should be done, and we can
discuss the discussion (heh) on Monday.
-- Michael
Hi there,
I noticed that there's a QEMU users forum at:
http://adt.cs.upb.de/quf/
and that the abstract submission phase is still open, and closes
November 28th. It would be great to see some participation there and
help identify other key people interested in using and improving QEMU.
--
Christian Robottom Reis | [+55] 16 9112 6430 | http://launchpad.net/~kiko
Linaro Engineering VP | [ +1] 612 216 4935 | http://async.com.br/~kiko
Zach Welch --
== Last Week ==
* Continued working on libunwind support. Trying to figure out why my
signal frame detection doesn't work as expected.
* Kept pace with the ltrace tree, testing recent patches on ARM.
== This Week ==
* Continue to work on libunwind signal frame detection.
Julian Brown --
== Linaro GCC ==
* Looked at issues #663198 (double-precision register expected) --
which was already fixed on the linaro branch, but the bug was reported
against a version just prior to that, and #667490 -- which involved a
possible problem with the NEON "load 0.0" patch. Experimented for a
while with the latter, but could not find anything wrong.
Followed up upstream, and requested a stand-alone test case.
* Worked on a proper solution to the VMOVN-in-big-endian-mode problem,
discovering that several other quadword-register operations were
similarly broken in the process. WIP patch sent to linaro-toolchain for
discussion, but it needs a little more work before it can be applied.
Peter Maydell --
Progress:
* qemu: more cleanup of signal handler VFP patchset;
I think I just need to add iwmmx support and it's good
* qemu: VCVT: found yet another bug, did final patchset
cleanup: submitted to upstream list [8 patch series]
* qemu: submitted a trivial patch to fix a problem where
__get_user/_put_user macros had an unnecessary local var
which could clash with a var being used by the macro user
* set up a tree on git.linaro.org which we can use for
a branch to make pull requests for ARM qemu fixes
* did a rough estimate of time to do an Eagle qemu model
(6 months + testing/bug fixing time)
Issues:
* lost some time to a problem where Linux VMs stopped being
able to talk to the LDAP server; however I have a workaround
and IT are investigating
Meetings:
* toolchain, toolchain standup, pdsw-tools, PD doughnuts
Plans
- attend Meego conference in Dublin (Nov 15-18 inc travel)
http://conference2010.meego.com/
- start on qemu consolidation by upstreaming various ARMv7
correctness fixes
Andrew Stubbs --
== GCC 4.5 ==
* Continued working on LP:663939.
* I still have not worked out how best to fix the constant
propagation problem that has been thwarting my optimization patch,
however I think I understand it better now.
* I have started on adding replicated pattern support to the
constant splitting. Initial results were good, but I discovered that I
had to rearrange the code somewhat to get the cost estimation and
negative/inverted constant support working correctly. So far, I have
it successfully using 16-bit replication pattern constants for
set/add/subtract operations. Other operations appear broken at the
moment, but it's almost certainly just a few tweaks required.
* TODO: Add support for 32-bit replicated pattern constants. Adjust
some of the other two-instruction constant generation techniques to
let them fall through to this new code, where it would be beneficial.
* Pushed the latest set of GCC patches into Linaro GCC 4.5.
Chung-Lin Tang --
== Linaro GCC ==
* Linaro #672833, one batch of my backports of Bernd's postreload
patches exposed some varargs regressions for x86-64, was reverted by
Michael. Tested the compiler and found it was fixed on mainline
rev.162384. Backporting this revision plus the postreload patches
fixed the regressions; x86-64 bootstrap also verified okay. There is
however another PR45027 fix that was needed on trunk, but needs a bit
more clarification if needed on a 4.5 compiler.
* Linaro #641397, CS issue #6753: bitfield optimization. Patch tested
without regressions, posted for CS internal review, should soon push
for Linaro merge.
* Started looking further at some GCC DF, IRA internals.
== This week ==
* Look at more Linaro issues.
* Maybe start looking at some GCC bugzilla PRs.
* There is a local ARM technical event in Hsinchu on Thursday, might
go and look around.
Yao Qi --
== Linaro GCC ==
* Mainline patch backport to Linaro 4.5.
** Patch "Fix an if statement in arm_rtx_costs_1". Verified on Linaro
4.5. 0.1% smaller on size, and 0.2% faster on speed. Merged to Linaro
4.5 by Andrew S.
** Try Nathan F's ifcvt-cond-move patch on cortex-a8 with -O2/O3. No
improvements on speed/size for EEMBC.
** Bernd's ldm/stm patch. Analyze the reason of regression on Linaro
4.5. Found something wrong in IRA rtl dump, and spend sometime on
understanding IRA rtl dump log. Thanks to Chung-Lin, I realize that IRA
dump is correct, and look back to ARM RTL patterns on ldm/stm. Compared
RTL patterns in 4.5 and 4.6, found some difference. Regenerate
ldmstm.md for Linaro 4.5 after update arm-ldmstm.ml a little bit.
Regressions goes away!
No speed improvement, but code is smaller by 0.2% in EEMBC. Still
prefer to merge to Linaro 4.5.
ocaml is an interesting language, but not easy to learn and read in vim.
* Some discussion on Linaro development process.
* My regrename improvement patch (re. LP:633243). Communicate with
Eric Botcazou back and forth, but current patch is still too
target-dependent to him, as a Middle-End maintainer. Still need some
improvements.
* Build FSF GCC trunk. CLoog requirement in configure is wrong, revert
configure to previous version, and then pass the version checking during
gcc configure.
Hi there. Could everyone in the toolchain working group start sending
their activity reports to this list please? Put [ACTIVITY] at the
start of the subject line so that they can be filtered.
Ta,
-- Michael
Hi there. Attached are the status reports from the Toolchain WG
members for last week.
-- Michael
Ken Werner --
Hi Michael,
* got access to the internal wiki/calendar/email :)
* continued to setup the borrowed vexpress board
* upgraded to the Linaro 10.11 release
* encountered various issues until I found that the /etc/hosts is empty
(#674090)
* learned that the SD card issue is a known problem (#632798)
* the network interface sometimes dies if stressed (Matt was able to
reproduce this)
* the disabled CONFIG_SWAP is being tracked as #672656
* sometimes the entire system hangs (when under heavy load?)
* David noticed that /proc/cpuinfo lacks neon support (but his string
benchmark/testcase ran fine)
* wondering why the kernel reports only about 800 BogoMIPS while it's around
2k on the panda board
* started to work on the atomic memory operations item
* identified the relevant GCC patches
* still looking for a good way to verify the GCC support
* posted a patch on the glibc-ports ml with regard to #643171
David A Gilbert --
I managed to get to try Ken Werner's Versatile Express board with an A9MP
tile; the shape
of the graphs matches that from the Panda, but the raw performance is down
by a factor of about
3 - I'm guessing it's clocked lower for some reason.
It confirms however that the Neon behaviour I was seeing with memset is
not Panda/OMAP4 specific;
no one has replied to my post to linaro-toolchain. It's a difficult
situation in that my fastest memset on
Beagle is with Neon, and my fastest on v9 is without Neon - what would you
select on?
I've just finished writing memchr tests and my first crack at a faster
version; I realised I could use the same
trick that I had used for strlen and it works nicely - it seems to be about
50% faster than the libc version;
I've not tested against any other versions yet.
Paul Mckenney hasn't replied yet about the OSSC stuff, but apparently
he's out travelling and back next
week; so I'll catch him then.
I tried preloading my faster memset into ghostscript, but found it was
blatantly ignoring it - I think the memset
is being called from somewhere inside libc; I managed to get xdeb to cross
build me a libc but haven't yet got my
changes into it.
My order for a USB hard drive for my beagle seems to have been delayed by
the supplier; I'm pushing this but
it's starting to be a bit of a pain.
Richard Sandiford --
== Last Week ==
* Pinged my GAS fix for Thumb PLT branches to locally-defined symbols.
Committed it to binutils trunk and 2.21 branch after approval. This
fixes the libgcc.so build failure that I was seeing with GOLD.
* Worked on a patch to fix GOLD's handling of non-function references
to weak undefined symbols. This ended up touching every backend
(i386, x86_64, ARM, Power and SPARC) and was quite invasive, so it
took a while in the end. Committed to binutils trunk after approval.
* Ran more tests, both with -marm and -mthumb. I'm getting identical
GCC test results (including gfortran and objc) for GOLD and BFD ld, so
I think we're at the stage where GOLD is a viable replacement for the
BFD linker.
== Next Week ==
* I'll start looking at the IFUNC support.
* I'll take another look at launchpad bug 665598.
Peter Maydell --
Progress:
* qemu: more cleanup of signal handler VFP patchset;
I think I just need to add iwmmx support and it's good
* qemu: VCVT: found yet another bug, did final patchset
cleanup: submitted to upstream list [8 patch series]
* qemu: submitted a trivial patch to fix a problem where
__get_user/_put_user macros had an unnecessary local var
which could clash with a var being used by the macro user
* set up a tree on git.linaro.org which we can use for
a branch to make pull requests for ARM qemu fixes
* did a rough estimate of time to do an Eagle qemu model
(6 months + testing/bug fixing time)
Issues:
* lost some time to a problem where Linux VMs stopped being
able to talk to the LDAP server; however I have a workaround
and IT are investigating
Meetings:
* toolchain, toolchain standup, pdsw-tools, PD doughnuts
Plans
- attend Meego conference in Dublin (Nov 15-18 inc travel)
http://conference2010.meego.com/
- start on qemu consolidation by upstreaming various ARMv7
correctness fixes
Ira Rosen --
Here is this week report:
1. BeagleBoard installed, now "playing" with it
2. Continued to work on auto-detection of vector size
3. Looked into mixed vector sizes
4. Learning about vld and vst instructions
It looks like I won't be able to participate in Wed calls, since I am alone
with the kids on Wednesday evenings.
Hi all,
I've hit a probable assembler bug trying to build a Thumb-2 kernel:
Trying to assemble the attached file, I get:
arch/arm/kernel/relocate_kernel.S: Assembler messages:
arch/arm/kernel/relocate_kernel.S:10: Error: invalid offset, value too
big (0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFC)
arch/arm/kernel/relocate_kernel.S:11: Error: invalid offset, value too
big (0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFC)
arch/arm/kernel/relocate_kernel.S:58: Error: invalid offset, value too
big (0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFC)
arch/arm/kernel/relocate_kernel.S:59: Error: invalid offset, value too
big (0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFC)
The code appears correct and resonable, except that there should be a
.align directive before the data words at the end of the file (but
adding this doesn't fix the error)
Assembling in ARM (i.e., without -mthumb), or deleting the .globl
lines associated with the affected target symbols, the problem goes
away.
I believe this may be already by tracked by CodeSourcery as is issue #8775 (?)
Has anyone hit this issue before? Is it fixed upstream?
Any help much appreciated.
Cheers
---Dave
Hi,
I've been looking at some basic libc routine optimisation and have a
curious problem with memset and wondered if
anyone can offer some insights.
Some graphs and links to code are on
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Benchmarks/InitialMemset
I've written a simple memset in both a with and without Neon variety and
tested them on a Beagle(C4) and a Panda
board and I'm finding that the Neon version is faster than the non-neon
version (a bit) on the Beagle but a LOT slower on the
Panda - and I'd like to understand why it's slower than the non-neon version
- I'm guessing it's some form of cache interaction.
The graphs on that page are all generated by timing a loop that repeatedly
memsets the same area of memory; the X axis
is the size of the memset. Prior to the test loop the area is read into
cache (I came to the conclusion the A8 didn't write
allocate?). There are two variants of the graphs - absolute in MB/s on Y,
and a relative set (below the absolute) that
are relative to the performance of the libc routines. (The ones below those
pairs are just older versions).
if you look at the top left graph on that page you can see that on the
Beagle (left) my Neon routine beats my Thumb routine
a bit (both beating libc). If you look on the top right you see the Panda
performance with my Thumb code being the fastest and generally
following libc, but the Neon code (red line) topping out at about 2.5GB/s
which is substantially below the peak of the libc and ARM code.
The core loop of the Neon code (see the bzr link for the full thing) is:
4:
subs r4,r4,#32
vst2.8 {d0,d1,d2,d3}, [ r3:256 ]!
bne 4b
while the core of the non-Neon version is:
4:
subs r4,r4,#16
stmia r3!,{r1,r5,r6,r7}
bne 4b
I've also tried vst1 and vstm in the neon loop and it still won't match the
non-Neon version.
All suggestions welcome, plus I'd appreciate if anyone can suggest which
particular limit it's hitting - does
anyone have figures for the theoretical bus and L1 and L2 write bandwidths
for a Panda (and Beagle) ?
Thanks in advance,
Dave
Hi there. I've uploaded a draft of the slides and notes for next
weeks public review at:
http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~linaro-toolchain-wg/+junk/publicreview1105/fil…
'Toolchain Public Review 11.05.odp' is a set of slides I'll talk to.
The first 15-20 minutes will go through these to describe our focus
and goals and how they tie together the blueprints and priorities.
The rest of the session will go through the current blueprints and
priorities. See:
Toolchain Blueprints (short).pdf
for the summary version and:
Toolchain Blueprints (long).pdf
for the long version. The long version is interesting if you can't
find a particular tool or technology. It may be small enough to be
called out as a single work item.
These are only a draft, but I realised I haven't shared the plans with
the rest of the group very well and Monday's meeting won't be the
best.
I'm on holiday tomorrow but feel free to send me any comments,
-- Michael
Hi,
I started to look into mixed vector sizes (in the same loop). My main reason
for this was to allow widening and narrowing instructions, that have
different vector sizes for src and dest, to work properly. My example was
widen_mult (int = short * short), I thought its implementation was not
optimal. But now that I have a working GCC mainline for ARM, I see that it
works just fine.
short ub[], uc[];
int c[];
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
c[i] = ub[i] * ua[i];
is compiled as:
.L11:
add r1, r1, #1
vldmia r4!, {d18-d19}
cmp r5, r1
vldmia ip!, {d16-d17}
vmull.s16 q10, d18, d16
vstr d20, [r3, #-32]
vstr d21, [r3, #-24]
vmull.s16 q8, d19, d17
vstr d16, [r3, #-16]
vstr d17, [r3, #-8]
add r3, r3, #32
bhi .L11
which looks good to me at least from the vmull point of view.
Does anyone have an example when mixed vector size instructions are not used
properly?
Another reason for mixed sizes could be cases where only part of the loop
can be vectorized with the wider vectors. I don't know how common this is.
Are there any other reasons to implement mixed vector sizes? I understand
that this can be a useful feature, I am just not sure it's the most
important one.
Thanks,
Ira
I've been going through the ChangeLog for the release and am having
trouble justifying some of the changes brought in. In particular:
* -fstrict-volatile-bitfields, which is more appropriate for bare
metal/kernel code
* Cortex-M4 support
* C locale support in libstdc++-v3
The march/mcpu clean up is OK but marginal.
Our focus is time based performance on the Cortex-A series with an
implied applications over kernel/bare metal. This is a very narrow
view, but every non-performance line of code we bring in can also
bring in a bug.
Any thoughts? For those who are looking at using our toolchain, is
earlier access to other toolchain improvements interesting?
-- Michael
Hi all,
As you may or may not know, upstream GCC has now entered 'stage 3' of
it's development cycle. This will last until spring.
This means that they are only accepting bug fixes and documentation
improvements. New features and any performance improvements must wait
until GCC 4.6 branches, prior to release, and GCC 4.7 development opens.
During this process, our usual preferred work flow (upstream first) will
not work, so we'll have to do something else.
Here's my proposal:
* Create a new Launchpad branch for GCC 4.6.
* Synchronize this branch with upstream regularly
* once per week, perhaps.
* Try to get upstream approval for all new patches in the usual way
* on the understanding that they won't be applied until stage 1
* bug fixes are unaffected and may commit as usual.
* Commit all pending patches to our own 4.6 branch
* and backport them to our 4.5, branch, of course.
* Usual "no test regressions" policy applies to our own patches
* but beware regressions from merges from upstream.
* we may want to track the clean 4.6 test results for comparison
This is little different to what we do with the 4.5 release branch now.
Thoughts?
Andrew
The Linaro Toolchain Working Group is pleased to announce the latest
release of Linaro GCC 4.5.
Linaro GCC 4.5 is the fourth release in the 4.5 series. Based off the
latest GCC 4.5.1+svn164911, it includes many ARM-focused performance
improvements and bug fixes.
Interesting changes include:
* Various NEON related fixes
* Performance improvements
* A clean up of some of the testsuite test cases
* An updated version of the __sync multicore primitives
* Improvements in data packing when optimising for size
* C locale support in libstdc++-v3
This release adds the new option -fstrict-volatile-bitfields and
enables it by default on ARM. See doc/invoke.texi for more
information.
The source tarball is available from:
https://launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/+milestone/4.5-2010.11-0
Downloads are available from the Linaro GCC page on Launchpad:
https://launchpad.net/gcc-linaro
Note that there were no changes to the 4.4 series.
-- Michael
The Linaro Toolchain Working Group is pleased to announce the release
of Linaro GDB 7.2.
Linaro GDB 7.2 2010.11-0 is the second release in the 7.2 series.
Based off the latest GDB 7.2, it includes a number of ARM-focused bug
fixes and enhancements.
This release concentrates on the GDB test suite and tidies up a number
of failures.
The source tarball is available at:
https://launchpad.net/gdb-linaro/+milestone/7.2-2010.11-0
More information on Linaro GDB is available at:
https://launchpad.net/gdb-linaro
-- Michael
Hi,
It looks like it's enough to implement targetm.vectorize.
autovectorize_vector_sizes for NEON in order to enable initial
auto-detection of vector size. With the attached patch and
-mvectorize-with-neon-quad flag, the vectorizer first tries to vectorize
for 128 bit, and if this fails, it tries to vectorize for 64 bit. For
example, in the attached testcase number of iterations is too small for 128
bit (first 2 iterations have to be peeled in order to align the array
accesses), but is sufficient for 64 bit (the accesses are aligned here).
I'd appreciate your comments on the patch, and I also have a few questions:
1. Why the default vector size is 64?
2. Where is the place of NEON vectorization tests? I found NEON tests with
intrinsics at gcc.target/arm, is that the right place?
3. According to gcc.dg/vect/vect.exp the only flag that is used for NEON
(in addition to target independent flags) is -ffast-math. Is that enough?
Thanks,
Ira
ChangeLog:
* config/arm/arm.c (arm_autovectorize_vector_sizes): New
function.
(TARGET_VECTORIZE_AUTOVECTORIZE_VECTOR_SIZES): Define.
Index: config/arm/arm.c
===================================================================
--- config/arm/arm.c (revision 166032)
+++ config/arm/arm.c (working copy)
@@ -246,6 +246,7 @@ static bool arm_builtin_support_vector_misalignmen
const_tree type,
int misalignment,
bool is_packed);
+static unsigned int arm_autovectorize_vector_sizes (void);
/* Table of machine attributes. */
@@ -391,6 +392,9 @@ static const struct default_options arm_option_opt
#define TARGET_VECTOR_MODE_SUPPORTED_P arm_vector_mode_supported_p
#undef TARGET_VECTORIZE_PREFERRED_SIMD_MODE
#define TARGET_VECTORIZE_PREFERRED_SIMD_MODE arm_preferred_simd_mode
+#undef TARGET_VECTORIZE_AUTOVECTORIZE_VECTOR_SIZES
+#define TARGET_VECTORIZE_AUTOVECTORIZE_VECTOR_SIZES \
+ arm_autovectorize_vector_sizes
#undef TARGET_MACHINE_DEPENDENT_REORG
#define TARGET_MACHINE_DEPENDENT_REORG arm_reorg
@@ -23223,6 +23227,12 @@ arm_expand_sync (enum machine_mode mode,
}
}
+static unsigned int
+arm_autovectorize_vector_sizes (void)
+{
+ return TARGET_NEON_VECTORIZE_QUAD ? 16 | 8 : 0;
+}
+
static bool
arm_vector_alignment_reachable (const_tree type, bool is_packed)
{
test:
#define N 5
unsigned int ub[N+2] = {1,1,6,39,12,18,14};
unsigned int uc[N+2] = {2,3,4,11,6,7,1};
void main1 ()
{
int i;
unsigned int udiff = 2;
unsigned int umax = 10;
for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
{
/* Summation. */
udiff += (ub[i+2] - uc[i]);
/* Maximum. */
umax = umax < uc[i+2] ? uc[i+2] : umax;
}
}
Hi there. Just a reminder that today's call is the first at the new
time of 0900 UTC which is 9am in the UK, 10am in Germany, 11am in
Israel, and 5pm in China.
I've updated the meetings page at:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings
with the new details.
-- Michael
Hi,
I am backporint some patches from FSF mainline, which may improve Linaro
4.5 gcc on thumb2 speed.
The first one is done by Richard E. "Improve optimization to transform
TST into LSLS"
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg02518.html
After it applied to Linaro 4.5 tree, EEMBC speed number downgrades,
while code size is reduced to some extent. The code difference is like
this,
6801 ldr r1, [r0, #0]
f831 3013 ldrh.w r3, [r1, r3, lsl #1]
-f413 6f00 tst.w r3, #2048 ; 0x800
-f43f af41 beq.w cc <t_run_test+0xcc>
+0518 lsls r0, r3, #20
+f57f af44 bpl.w cc <t_run_test+0xcc>
4610 mov r0, r2
After reading cortex-a8 TRM, I can't find exact timing cycles of lsls.
Under Chung-Lin's help, we feel that lsls should be slower than tst, but
don't have any evidence to prove. If any people is familiar with arm
microarch, help is welcome. If our assumption is correct, we may can
change this patch to an optimization specific to size only.
The second patch is Bernd's "Fix an if statement in arm_rtx_costs_1"
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg02096.html
After this patch applied, EEMBC benchmark number is not changed. Shall
we merge this patch to linaro 4.5 tree? I am inclined to merge it, but
if you have concerns on this patch, let us discuss here.
--
Yao Qi
CodeSourcery
yao(a)codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x739
Hi there. I plan to change the Toolchain WG meetings due to daylight
savings and to better cover the US.
The Monday meeting will be at 0900 UTC which is 9 am in the UK, 10 am
in central Europe, and 5 pm in Beijing.
The standup calls will be merged into one at 1800 UTC on Wednesday
which is 6 pm in the UK, 7 pm in central Europe, and 1 pm on the US
East Coast. I don't expect China to call in as it's a quite
unreasonable time.
I'll update the invites and wiki page to reflect this. We'll start
the new times next week, so Monday the 8th will be the first meeting
at the new time.
-- Michael
The gaol and plan of investigation has been described in [1]
In the plan, this task is divided into three parts, 1) patch backport,
2) regression fix, and 3) exploration and study other ARM compilers.
This report follow the same manner.
1. Patch backport.
8 patches are listed in [1]. Backport them to Linaro 4.5 tree will
improve speed performance.
Action/Recommendation: Backport them if speed improves. These patches
are ones that I think they *should* improve speed, but "performance
surprise" is not impossible.
2. Regression fix.
So far (until r99399), Linaro GCC 4.5 is slower than FSF GCC 4.5.0 on
some EEMBC benchmarks. Performance regression is introduced by four
commits, r99324,r99330,r99369,r99380, see details in [2].
Action/Recommendation: Figure out why speed regression is introduced,
and try to fix it.
One cent here is that how to avoid speed regression. I do believe that
sometimes regression is unavoidable, but it is better if can track them,
and keep them manageable.
3. Exploration and study other ARM compilers.
In this part, I don't find any possible thumb-2 specific improvements.
However, loop optimization and instruction scheduling should be improved
on ARM. (This statement may be true to all ports, or even all compilers)
Some tickets are opened for this part,
LP:660644 Missed optimization opportunities
LP:662692 Inner loop in autcor00 can be optimized better
LP:656957 LP:645267 Improve code generation on switch statement
LP:663793 Tune Swing Modulo Scheduling or Selective Scheduling for ARM
LP:656373 Try -fsched-pressure for ARM
I have to admit that instruction scheduling is quite hard, but if we can
do something here, that will be great. I've put it in
"performance-insdie-gcc" session on UDS. Let us talk about it a little
there next week.
During this investigation, I also find LTO or "whole-program
optimization" is useful to some EEMBC benchmarks. (I didn't run LTO/WPO
at all, but I got this when read source of benchmarks)
[1] Plan of CS304: Thumb2 tuning investigation.
http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/linaro-toolchain/2010-October/000300.html
[2] https://wiki.linaro.org/YaoQi/Sandbox/Thumb2SpeedOptimization
--
Yao Qi
CodeSourcery
yao(a)codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x739
Hi there. I've updated the list of potential Summit sessions based on
yesterdays call. Could people please check the Sessions table on
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2010-10-18
and flesh out the agenda for sessions that have your name against them.
The agenda should be five to ten discussion points, preferably of
things that are not well understood and could use input from the
group.
There's a good discussion on what to expect at a Summit here:
http://oubiwann.blogspot.com/2010/10/q-the-ubuntu-developer-summits.html
You can check the already-approved sessions here:
http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-n/
Feel free to join in to any other sessions you might find interesting.
There will be quite a few people with diverse backgrounds there,
including ~80 people from Linaro, ~400 from Ubuntu, ~200 from the
community, and ~200 remote. The overlap between Toolchain and Ubuntu
interests might not be great, so I'll make sure a common work room is
available for idle time.
-- Michael
Some of Linaro developers works with ARM devices older then ARMv7-a
architecture. Other people experiments with hard-float ABI. Each of them has
to rebuild toolchain for own use and that means playing with components to
have them build properly.
But it is no more - I made some patches and armel-cross-toolchain-base since
1.53 version + newer source packages for gcc-4.[45]-armel-cross have support
for "debian/flavour" file which allows to set some flags related to toolchain
build.
So far supported things are:
- ARM architecture
- float ABI
- FPU mode
- Thumb mode
This feature is not merged into regular Ubuntu packages yet as this is work in
progress which needs to be cleaned first.
http://people.linaro.org/~hrw/armel-cross-toolchain/ has all source packages
needed.
Regards,
--
JID: hrw(a)jabber.org
Website: http://marcin.juszkiewicz.com.pl/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinjuszkiewicz
Some of Linaro developers works with ARM devices older then ARMv7-a
architecture. Other people experiments with hard-float ABI. Each of them has
to rebuild toolchain for own use and that means playing with components to
have them build properly.
But it is no more - I made some patches and armel-cross-toolchain-base since
1.53 version + newer source packages for gcc-4.[45]-armel-cross have support
for "debian/flavour" file which allows to set some flags related to toolchain
build.
So far supported things are:
- ARM architecture
- float ABI
- FPU mode
- Thumb mode
This feature is not merged into regular Ubuntu packages yet as this is work in
progress which needs to be cleaned first.
http://people.linaro.org/~hrw/armel-cross-toolchain/ has all source packages
needed.
Regards,
--
JID: hrw(a)jabber.org
Website: http://marcin.juszkiewicz.com.pl/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinjuszkiewicz
I meant to send this to the "external" Linaro toolchain mailing list,
not the internal CS one. Apologies to those who receive it twice!
In a follow-up message, Joseph Myers pointed out a post he'd written
previously on the same subject:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg00409.html
In further followups (at the risk of misrepresenting Joseph & Paul
Brook's opinions!), there seemed to be general agreement that a scheme
something like that outlined below, with "permuting" loads/stores and
some way of handling multiple in-register layouts for vectors seems
like it will be a necessary addition to the vectorizer, going forward.
Julian
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 16:45:17 +0100
From: Julian Brown <julian(a)codesourcery.com>
To: Ira Rosen <IRAR(a)il.ibm.com>
Cc: Tejas Belagod <Tejas.Belagod(a)arm.com>, Linaro List
<gnu-linaro-tools(a)codesourcery.com> Subject: [gnu-linaro-tools] NEON
vectorization: use of specialized load/store instructions
Hi,
We're having some system issues, so I thought I'd take the chance to
write down some things I've been thinking about re: utilising the NEON
load/store instructions more effectively. I've also attempted to
summarize the problems with big-endian mode. All unverified as of yet,
so please take with a pinch of salt :-). Comments appreciated. It's
been a while since I last thought about some of this stuff...
Cheers,
Julian
Use of specialized load instructions
====================================
To provide good support for NEON's element and structure load/store
instructions, GCC lacks support for a couple of key features:
1. A good way of representing a set of two, three or four vector
registers (either D- or Q-sized), possibly with non-unit stride.
2. A generalised mapping between memory locations and lane numbers.
To start with point 1: currently the element and structure load/store
instructions are only supported via intrinsics. These are specified to
load and store as if going via an array embedded in a union, i.e.:
typedef struct int8x8x2_t
{
int8x8_t val[2];
} int8x8x2_t;
__extension__ static __inline int8x8x2_t __attribute__
((__always_inline__)) vld2_s8 (const int8_t * __a)
{
union { int8x8x2_t __i; __builtin_neon_ti __o; } __rv;
__rv.__o = __builtin_neon_vld2v8qi ((const __builtin_neon_qi *) __a);
return __rv.__i;
}
Even for a trivial test program, e.g.:
#include <arm_neon.h>
int foo (int8_t *x)
{
int8x8x2_t result = vld2_s8 (x);
return vget_lane_s8 (result.val[0], 1);
}
We will generate code like so:
sub sp, sp, #32
vld2.8 {d16-d17}, [r0]
mov r3, sp
vstmia sp, {d16-d17}
add ip, sp, #16
ldmia r3, {r0, r1, r2, r3}
stmia ip, {r0, r1, r2, r3}
fldd d16, [sp, #16]
vmov.s8 r0, d16[1]
add sp, sp, #32
bx lr
I.e., rather than being used directly, the registers loaded by vld2
will always be spilled to the stack then reloaded. This obviously
reduces the usefulness of these intrinsics by a large factor. With some
planning, it'd be good to find a powerful enough solution to this
problem so that the same representation for multiple registers can be
used by the autovectorizer as well as the intrinsic-handling code.
(One difficulty is that the "foo.val[X]" interface should still be
available to user code. There's probably no need for "val" to literally
be an array, though other representations would require front-end
changes).
Assuming it's hard for the register allocator to deal with
highly-constrained situations like requiring four consecutive
registers, one (ugly) possibility might be to run a pass before
register allocation, looking for "big" multi-register vectors and
pre-allocating them to hard registers. Even using a fixed allocation of
a single set of registers (e.g. make it so that all multi-reg
loads/stores larger than a Q register must use d0-d7, or whatever)
would probably give better code than what we produce at present, in
most cases.
Now, point 2. To start with, an aside: AIUI, there is currently an
assumption in the vectoriser code that increasing element numbers in
vector registers correspond to increasing addresses when those
registers are loaded from and stored to memory (as if the vector was a
short array, or alternatively as if a union of the vector register and
an array of element-types had the same numberings for lanes and array
indices corresponding to the same elements). Unfortunately that is only
true for NEON in little-endian mode: in big-endian mode, the story is
more complicated, for reasons I will try to explain.
To remain compliant with the soft-float variant of the ARM EABI, we
must pass vector register arguments in ARM registers (or the stack),
not vector registers. This means that we must be very careful with the
ordering of elements for values passed to functions. Consider the
trivial function:
int __attribute__((noinline)) qux (int16x8_t x)
{
x = vaddq_s16 (x, x);
return vgetq_lane_s16 (x, 1);
}
This is compiled by GCC to the following (slightly unimpressively):
vmov d18, r1, r0 @ v8hi
vmov d19, r3, r2
vmov d20, r1, r0 @ v8hi
vmov d21, r3, r2
vadd.i16 q8, q9, q10
vmov.s16 r0, d16[1]
bx lr
Which may then be called like, e.g.:
ldmia sp, {r0-r3}
blx qux
So: notice that we're careful that when vector values are transferred
from NEON registers to core registers, the same result will be
transferred to/from memory when we use ldm/stm (core registers) or
vldm/vstm (vector registers) -- i.e. we might use "vldm rX, {d18-d19}",
storing d18 and d19 in consecutive increasing addresses, or "ldmia rX,
{r0-r3}", again with consecutive registers in increasing memory
locations, and we get the same outcome. The fact that we can use the
multiple-register loads/stores is also important for spilling/reloading
between vector and core registers, which inevitably happens
occasionally.
Notice also that when we call the above function like so:
typedef union {
int16x8_t quadvec;
int16_t half[8];
} u;
int foo (int8_t *x)
{
u bar;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 8; i++)
bar.half[i] = i;
qux (bar.quadvec);
}
The value returned from "qux" is NOT 2 (1+1), as it would be if we were
accessing the value at index 1 in the superimposed array in the union
"u". The vgetq_lane_s16 call still interprets the array as if it had
been loaded in little-endian element order. But we don't get the result
we would have if the vector had been interpreted in purely big-endian
order either (i.e. 12, 6+6)! In fact from the perspective of the
element numbering used by vgetq_lane_s16, the vector elements we see
for each of the (equal) operands of the "vadd" instruction in the qux
function are:
equiv. core register
lane number (at function entry) value
----------- -------------------- -----
[0] high part of r1 3
[1] low part of r1 2
[2] high part of r0 1
[3] low part of r0 0
[4] high part of r3 7
[5] low part of r3 6
[6] high part of r2 5
[7] low part of r2 4
So the value returned will be 2+2, 4.
Now, coming back to the vectorizer. Current practice means that
increasing element numbers should correspond to increasing memory
locations: i.e., that "array ordering" is in effect, just as in the
call to vgetq_lane_s16 in the above example. This leads to an anomaly:
it means that when the vectorizer asks for a particular element, it
will generally get a different one. Most of the time we get away with
this, since the vectorizer mostly deals with "opaque" vectors which are
operated on element-wise: i.e. we only deal with data at the
granularity of whole vectors, so it doesn't matter which order the
elements are in. The ARM implementations of reduction operations
fortuitously calculate the results across all elements simultaneously,
so when one of those elements is extracted, we still get the right
answer.
One notable exception to this though is the movmisalign<mode> patterns:
these are implemented using the vld1 and vst1 instructions, which load
elements in "array" order (increasing elements from increasing memory
locations), even in big-endian mode. Since vectors loaded using those
instructions are "incompatible" with the above scheme, such misaligned
accesses are simply disabled in big-endian mode.
Of course, generally, sticking with the current non-solution in
big-endian mode is not sustainable (and is probably already broken in
various cases). So it might be worth thinking about whether supporting
big-endian mode properly, as well as handling the more complex load and
store element/structure instructions, can be done using some
generalised solution.
I'm thinking (without having much idea about how feasible such an idea
is) of something along the lines of a function (in the mathematical
sense) attached to each vector value manipulated by the vectorizer, to
map that value's element numberings to and from memory offsets. So then
the quad-word vector of 16-bit elements discussed above would look
like, in big-endian mode:
foo, {6, 4, 2, 0, 14, 12, 10, 8}
Whereas in little-endian mode (or in big-endian mode, for vectors
loaded using vld1), it would look like:
foo, {0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14}
And then, perhaps more interestingly, a vector loaded using e.g. a
"multiple 3-element structures" load,
vld3.16 {d1, d2, d3}, [rN]
Might look like (in either endianness, assuming we can represent a
vector of such size in our hypothetical scheme):
foo, {0, 6, 12, 18, 2, 8, 14, 20, 4, 10, 16, 22}
Though it's not clear that such a scheme would be powerful enough to
represent the whole range of element/structure loads/stores available
(you'd probably need to be able to specify skipped or don't-care
elements to do that, at least).
First of all, the goal of this work is about investigation on speed
improvement on linaro gcc 4.5. Finally, the output/result of this work
is to list all possible recommendations/actions to improve speed on
linaro 4.5. Comments to this plan are welcome.
So far, we can improve speed in three ways,
1. Backport patches from FSF GCC 4.6. Note that we don't want to
backport the whole 4.6.
2. Benchmark with FSF GCC 4.5.0. Fix performance regressions if there
are on linaro gcc 4.5. Output is the reason of performance regression,
or even further, give recommendations on how to fix it.
3. Study the code generated by other ARM compilers, and give
recommendations on how to improve GCC to do better job.
I'll describe these three ways in details in the following sections,
- Backport patches from FSF GCC 4.6
I went through gcc-patches archive, and select several patches that are
helpful to code improvements.
1 ifcvt optimization. Target independent.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg00832.html
2 redundant register move for sign extending. Thumb2.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43137
3. PR 45335 Use ldrd and strd to access two consecutive words.
Not yet approved.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg00059.html
4. Fix an if statement in arm_rtx_costs_1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg02096.html
5. Reduce code duplication for Thumb2 move patterns
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg00624.html
6. ARM ldm/stm peepholes
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg00512.html
7. PR44999 Replace "and r0, r0, #255" with uxtb in thumb2
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg01700.html
8. Improve optimization to transform TST into LSLS
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg02518.html
9. Fix bswap patterns for ARM / Thumb and Thumb2.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-01/msg01238.html
- Fix speed regression
I found speed regression on EEMBC on linaro 4.5, compared with FSF GCC
4.5.0, and I'll investigate why speed regression happens on these cases.
Here is a table below about speed regression compared between FSF GCC
4.5.0 and Linaro GCC 4.5 (revno:99398)
O2 O3
puwmod01, -5.5 -3.5
bitmnp01, -7.9 -0.7
routelookup, -6.4 -8.2
conven00data_1, -7.2 -5.8
conven00data_2, -8.1 -7.3
conven00data_3, -6.6 -5.5
viterb00data_1, -1.7 +5.9
viterb00data_2, -4.3 +2.6
viterb00data_3, -2.3 +1.8
viterb00data_4, -5.3 -0.3
- Study the code generated by other ARM compilers.
In this part, I'll study the binary generated by other ARM compilers,
and try to teach GCC smart enough to do the same thing. This piece of
work is quite open, and hard to estimate how much output we could get.
--
Yao Qi
CodeSourcery
yao(a)codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x739
People here might want to have a look at this bug:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bg.cgi?id=45979
Note that the heap randomization feature added to the kernel was part of
a Linaro security blueprint.
Nicolas
The Linaro Toolchain Working Group is pleased to announce the 2010.10
consolidation release including Linaro GCC 4.4, Linaro GCC 4.5, and
the first version of Linaro GDB 7.2.
Linaro GDB 7.2 2010.10-0 is the first release in the 7.2 series. Based
off the latest GDB 7.2, it includes a number of ARM-focused bug fixes
and enhancements.
Interesting changes include:
* Backtraces in Thumb-2 code are significantly improved
* Much better prologue and epilogue parsing
* Improved software watchpoint support
* Many test suite tidy-ups
Linaro GCC 4.5 is the third release in the 4.5 series. Based off the
latest GCC 4.5.1+svn, it includes many ARM-focused performance
improvements and bug fixes.
Linaro GCC 4.4 is the fourth release in the 4.4 series. Based off the
latest GCC 4.4.5, it fixes many of the issues found during building
Ubuntu over the last few months.
Interesting changes include:
* Linaro GCC 4.4 is now based off FSF GCC 4.4.5
* Cortex A8 and Cortex A9 scheduler NEON improvements
* Better code generation for constant addresses with inline assembly
* Better code for copying small constant strings
* Various correctness improvements
Downloads are available from the Linaro GCC and GDB pages on Launchpad:
https://launchpad.net/gcc-linarohttps://launchpad.net/gdb-linaro
-- Michael
Hi all,
I was wondering someone knows about a ARM DCC (debug
communications channel) device driver.
The idea is to run gdbserver on /dev/dcc such that application
debugging does not hog a serial/ethernet port.
I'd modify OpenOCD to forward the DCC onto a TCP/IP port
to connect GDB to the gdbserver.
--
Øyvind Harboe
US toll free 1-866-980-3434 / International +47 51 63 25 00
http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html
ARM7 ARM9 ARM11 XScale Cortex
JTAG debugger and flash programmer
(cc'ed to linaro-toolchain, bcc'ed to others who may be interested)
I'm considering adding a new Linaro Toolchain meeting to cover people
in the North/South American timezones. We've got quite a few people
in that area who are interested in the toolchain but can't make the
current 0900 UTC calls.
How about a weekly half-hour call on Wednesdays at 1800 UTC? Once
daylight savings drops out on the 7th of November, this would be 1000
Sacramento/PST, 1200 Houston/CST, and a reasonable evening time for
those in Europe who wish to join.
This will be a technical call and can cover topics such as status
updates, release plans, reported problems, and any input from
toolchain users.
Please send me an email if you are interested,
-- Michael
Hi Marcin. Would you consider passing
--enable-poison-system-directories to the cross compiler configure?
This makes the '-Wpoison-system-directories' option available which
warns you if the cross compiler picks up a library or header file from
/usr instead of the cross-build environment.
I'm talking with someone who's looking at using the Linaro compiler
and had a strange error due to picking up the host crtn.o. Having
this warning would of tracked down the problem faster.
-- Michael
I believe that the libgcc.a in our toolchain contains Thumb-2 code. I
verified this by doing objdump on libgcc.a and I see combinations of
16 and 32 bit instructions. So does that mean that the toolchain is
only usable for ARM versions that support Thumb-2?
Thanks,
John
As discussed in the meeting yesterday, CodeSourcery has a few MinGW
patches that I had not merged into Linaro GCC.
I have now investigated these patches, and I'm fairly happy that most
are not necessary for Linaro. They're mainly about interworking with Cygwin.
The one exception is this one:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg01214.html
(and even that is primarily a GDB issue).
Andrew
I made a patch for ltrace that adds support for Thumb-2. There's not
much to it, but it allows me to trace applications built for Cortex-A8.
Without it, users will experience this bug:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ltrace/+bug/639796
Unfortunately, it appears that the upstream tree is not well-maintained.
I posted it to the mailing list for the project, but others' patches
have been ignored for many months. However, my post precipitated another
contributor to offer to maintain the package.
I also posted this patch as the proposed solution for the above LP bug,
which should allow Linaro to benefit from the work without worrying
about upstream. In fact, a new version of the package appears to have
been released that includes my patch (0.5.3-2ubuntu6). Please give this
updated package a whirl and let me know if there is more work to be done.
Thoughts? Unless I hear feedback from others, I will assume that this
tool now works for Cortex-A[89] and move on to other tasks.
--
Zach Welch
CodeSourcery
zwelch(a)codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x743
(this is for current Toolchain WG members. Sorry if I got anyone
else's hopes up)
We'll soon be coming into some decent dual-core Cortex-A9 boards that
have 1 GB of RAM and a good set of USB ports. I've asked for four of
them with hard drives to go into the data centre for general use.
Would anyone also like one for their desk? Note that you're generally
better off using a data centre board as it's one less thing to
maintain.
-- Michael
Hi
I finally built armel cross compiler packages for Ubuntu 10.04 'Lucid' LTS.
They are available in unsigned APT repository:
deb http://people.canonical.com/~hrw/ubuntu-lucid-armel-cross-compilers/ ./
They are built from Maverick packages:
- binutils-source
- eglibc-source
- gcc-4.4-source
- gcc-4.5-source
- linux-source-2.6.35
- armel-cross-toolchain-base
- gcc-4.4-armel-cross
- gcc-4.5-armel-cross
So they do not give exactly same versions as compilers used in 10.04 - please
remember about it while doing cross builds.
Regards,
--
JID: hrw(a)jabber.org
Website: http://marcin.juszkiewicz.com.pl/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinjuszkiewicz
Hi folks
apparently some tool calls "strip" instead of "$triplet-strip" when
cross-building; this is something we shall fix, but it is apparently
corrupting the binaries in some cases:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/615765
It seems the ELF architecture isn't set properly, or so I'm told.
Which component is to blame here? Are we looking at a binutils or a
gcc bug for not being able to set or read enough data that the
architecture mismatch isn't detected? What could we do about it?
Thanks!
--
Loïc Minier
The Linaro Toolchain Working Group is pleased to announce
the availability of a "developer preview" of Valgrind
which includes the support for ARM and Thumb which has
recently been added by the Valgrind developers.
Our aim with this preview release is to advertise
Valgrind's improved ARM support and encourage people
to try it out and find bugs before the official 3.6.0
release. Please report bugs via upstream's BTS:
http://valgrind.org/support/bug_reports.html
or you can ask on linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org
if you have any problems.
This release is a snapshot of upstream subversion; it
should generally work but you may encounter bugs, especially
if you run it on hand-optimised assembly that uses obscure
instructions.
New (upstream) features in this snapshot include:
* Greatly improved support for ARM
* Support for the Thumb instruction set
* Support for NEON and VFPv3 instructions
Known issues:
* callgrind has difficulty identifying ARM function
call and return so may not produce useful results
Downloads are available from the Linaro Overlay PPA:
https://launchpad.net/~linaro-maintainers/+archive/overlay
...so if you're running Linaro on an ARM system you
should be able to just install it with
'apt-get install valgrind'.
-- Peter Maydell
To All Ye Linaro Toolchain Folk, (and OpenOCD developers too)
After a week of reading specifications and code, I am ready to start
doing some serious hacking on OpenOCD. The following outlines my present
plans and expectations, with the caveat that time can change everything.
Last week, I started testing my BeagleBoard with OpenOCD, so I have
begun trying to validate and improve the Cortex-A8 support. Indeed, I
have already committed a minor patch that fixed a bug in the trunk
caused by new command syntax required to distinguish physical memory
addresses from virtual ones. That bug had been preventing the BeagleBoard
support from working for several months, so this seems to show that
nobody has been using (or even testing) the latest code with that board.
It seems that much of the debug architecture can be shared between these
two cores, so features added and bugs fixed for A8 should help me
implement A9 faster. Indeed, A9 support may be more a matter of
refactoring the existing code than developing new code. In this respect,
the lists of tasks for A8 and A9 may end up proceeding in parallel.
Cortex-A8:
1) Add missing topology detection for determining location of AHB-AP
(for system memory access), APB-AP (for DAP and other CoreSight
components), and register address range for accessing the DAP.
2) Fix Halt After Reset functionality (using vector catch magic).
3) Expose missing VFP3/NEON registers (only when present).
4) Fix various memory and resource leaks.
Cortex-A9:
1) Basic bring-up to successful attachment with debugger.
2) Develop board scripts for common evaluation boards.
3) Work on advanced features:
- download and run algorithms out of memory,
- breakpoints/watchpoints,
- tracing and performance monitoring,
4) Ensure SMP support works out-of-the-box.
Finally, it would be good to produce a new release when all of these
changes have made it into the tree. Due to various factors, the project
has not achieved a regular release schedule, but these features would
help to justify the effort from the community.
P.S. I have cc'd the openocd-development list in the hope of generating
useful feedback, but it requires subscribing to post (last I checked).
Sorry for the bad netiquette.
--
Zach Welch
CodeSourcery
zwelch(a)codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x743