linaro-toolchain

linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org

1 participants
5666 discussions

by Yao Qi

* One day off on Monday. # Progress # * Answer ST questions about supporting multi-arch with ST jtag probe. [1/10] * TCWG-171, Enable gdb core file tests when testing remotely, [3/10]. Ongoing. * Run gdb.base/sizeof.exp with board having gdb,noinferiorio. Done. [1/10] * TCWG-460, mutli-arch follow-up work, teach AArch64 GDBserver understand ARM breakpoint instructions. Patch is approved. [2/10]. * TCWG-424, fail in gdb.base/random-signal.exp. [1/10] Root cause is identified, need to figure out how to fix it in next step. * Review ARM GDBserver software single step patch V4. # Plan # * TCWG-171, TCWG-156, TCWG-424. * Review ARM GDBserver software single step patch V5, which should be the final version, I hope. -- Yao

10 years, 1 month

[ACTIVITY] Nov 30- Dec 4, 2015

by Christophe Lyon

== Progress == * Validation - a few cleanup patches in the comparison scripts - contribute to debug of ptys allocation problems: the tests pass when executed outside of our schroots. - improvements in the reports from the validation done in the ST Compute Farm - reported a few regressions * GCC - cleanup patch for target attributes tests, - pr68620 (fp16 transfers in big-endian mode) * Misc (conf calls, meetings, emails, ....) == Next == * Validation: monitoring, improvements * GCC: bug fixes, cleanup

10 years, 1 month

GNU GCC development plan and its interaction with Linaro

by Virendra Kumar Pathak

Hi Linaro Toolchian Group, I am new to GCC development and have some basic question on its development process. Could you please give some insight on below questions. (Apology if they are very trivial). I have read https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html If I am correct, gcc trunk is on gcc 6.0.0 (stage 3) at present and will becomes 6.0.1 (regression fix only) in January 2016. gcc 6.0.1 will be released as gcc 6.1.0 in April, 2016 and from there onwards gcc 6 release branch will start. However, There is also a gcc 5 branch in parallel whose current version is 5.2.1 and will be released as gcc 5.3 soon. Hopefully gcc 5.3 would be the last release in gcc 5 series. (Please correct me if I am wrong). [Questions] 1. What is the difference between experimental(gcc 6.0.0 stage 3) & gcc release branch (gcc 5.2.1)? Is there any rule which decides which changes will go where? In case, I have some patches for new aarch64 processor at present, in which branch these changes would be merged (assuming they passes reviews)? 2. How is the subversion of release branches are decided? Is it correct to say that there will be always 3 subversion of any release branch (e.g. gcc 5.1, gcc 5.2 & gcc 5.3)? 3. What is the working model between GNU GCC and Linaro GCC? Does Linaro directly accept patches? or they need to go to GNU GCC first? Thanks in advance for your time. with regards, Virendra Kumar Pathak -- with regards, Virendra Kumar Pathak

10 years, 1 month

Fwd: Lost upstream patch in merge from gcc-5-branch to linaro/gcc-5-branch

by Robert Schiele

Keeping linaro-toolchain in the loop. Robert ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robert Schiele <rschiele(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:44 PM Subject: Re: Lost upstream patch in merge from gcc-5-branch to linaro/gcc-5-branch To: Yvan Roux <yvan.roux(a)linaro.org> Hi Yvan, On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Yvan Roux <yvan.roux(a)linaro.org> wrote: > This fix on gcc-5-branch doesn't apply on Linaro 5 branch, because we > have backported trunk revision 222624 (which renames maybe_fma to > coumpound_p) into it. So, our branch as the same code as trunk one > regarding aarch64_rtx_costs. Do you experiment any issues related to > this change ? No issues. This was just a theoretical thought and through our CI build I learned exactly what you just told me the hard way now. Sorry for the noise. Robert

10 years, 1 month

Bug: Linaro ABE abe.sh doesn't allow timeout > 10 seconds

by Christopher Roberts

abe.sh in the ABE framework accepts a parameter to set the wget timeout when it fetches snapshots (default 10s); however that parameter has an upper threshold of 10 seconds (condition at line 996 only sets timeout to specified value if < 11). Is this intentional? It seems like it would make more sense to give it a floor instead of a ceiling or perhaps not limit the range of potential values at all. Best regards, Chris Roberts

10 years, 1 month

why ld.so in arm-linux-gnueabihf- toolchains search so many paths ?

by Barry Song

hi guys, sorry maybe my question is stupid as i am not a toolchain guy. i have no idea why ld.so search so many paths. for example, put "-rpath" with /home/cnb1szh/test in a simple test program. then during dynamic linking at runtime, we get the below linking debug information: 30693: find library=libmytest.so [0]; searching 30693: search path=/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/v7l/neon/vfp:/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/v7l/neon:/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/v7l/vfp:/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/v7l:/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/neon/vfp:/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/neon:/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/vfp:/home/cnb1szh/test/tls:/home/cnb1szh/test/v7l/neon/vfp:/home/cnb1szh/test/v7l/neon:/home/cnb1szh/test/v7l/vfp:/home/cnb1szh/test/v7l:/home/cnb1szh/test/neon/vfp:/home/cnb1szh/test/neon:/home/cnb1szh/test/vfp:/home/cnb1szh/test (RPATH from file ./hello) 30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/v7l/neon/vfp/libmytest.so 30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/v7l/neon/libmytest.so 30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/v7l/vfp/libmytest.so 30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/v7l/libmytest.so 30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/neon/vfp/libmytest.so 30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/neon/libmytest.so 30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/vfp/libmytest.so 30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/tls/libmytest.so 30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/v7l/neon/vfp/libmytest.so 30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/v7l/neon/libmytest.so 30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/v7l/vfp/libmytest.so 30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/v7l/libmytest.so 30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/neon/vfp/libmytest.so 30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/neon/libmytest.so 30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/vfp/libmytest.so 30693: trying file=/home/cnb1szh/test/libmytest.so but we don't have /home/cnb1szh/test/tls/, /home/cnb1szh/test/v7l/, /home/cnb1szh/test/vfp/, /home/cnb1szh/test/neon/, why does the ld.so search so many paths? -barry

10 years, 1 month

Lost upstream patch in merge from gcc-5-branch to linaro/gcc-5-branch

by Robert Schiele

Hi, I found that with the merge commit ac19ac6481a3f326d9f41403f5dadab548b2c8a6 Author: Yvan Roux <yvan.roux(a)linaro.org> Date: Wed Sep 16 10:57:42 2015 +0200 Merge branches/gcc-5-branch rev 227732. Change-Id: I2f59904b28323b1c72a8cf1bd62c9e460d95bcea the following branch that was within merge range on gcc-5-branch was lost on the linaro branch: commit b45a5cf7c1544f95578e823e25402b58fb3fbedd Author: nsz <nsz@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4> Date: Tue Aug 4 16:49:54 2015 +0000 Fix broken backport patch. gcc: Backport from mainline: 2015-08-04 Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy(a)arm.com> PR target/66731 * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_rtx_costs): Fix NEG cost for FNMUL. (aarch64_rtx_mult_cost): Fix MULT cost with -frounding-math. git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5-branch@226588 138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4 diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c index 691874b..eebc9c3 100644 --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c @@ -5250,7 +5250,7 @@ aarch64_rtx_mult_cost (rtx x, int code, int outer, bool speed) which case FNMUL is different than FMUL with operand negation. */ bool neg0 = GET_CODE (op0) == NEG; bool neg1 = GET_CODE (op1) == NEG; - if (compound_p || !flag_rounding_math || (neg0 && neg1)) + if (maybe_fma || !flag_rounding_math || (neg0 && neg1)) { if (neg0) op0 = XEXP (op0, 0); Since this was a fix to the patch one commit ahead and also merged in the same operation and there is no further comment on why this fix was skipped, may I assume that this happened by accident and you probably want to fix that merge flaw by reapplying the missing patch? Or is there an information detail I don't have that requires this fix to be skipped on the Linaro branch? Robert

10 years, 1 month

[ACTIVITY] 23rd - 27th November

by Bernie Ogden

Controlled image builds - TCWG-360 [1/10] * Tried, failed to generate bootable images Jenkins benchmarking job - TCWG-348 [5/10] * Jenkins job functional on kvms in main instance * Wrote job-dispatch script for non-Jenkins use cases Juno crashdump [1/10] * Struggled with, worked around network problems * Juno running, waiting for it to crash SPEC-on-Android [1/10] * Helped Qian to find root cause of a problem Misc [2/10] =Plan= Review security with shared uinstance/main instance code Expose more data, benchmarks to bundles Debug/test Jenkins job in microinstance Create bootable image for at least 1 target, or know what the problems are Write up noise control report (if time) Probably more support for SPEC-on-Android

10 years, 1 month

[ACTIVITY] 23 - 27 November 2015

by Yao Qi

# Progress # * Fix timeout in random-signal.exp. TCWG-424. Ongoing. [4/10] I know the cause of the problem but can't figure out why it can happen. Can only reproduce the fail in every 20~30 runs. * TCWG-423, support gnu vector in inferior call in AArch64 GDB. Done. [1/10] * Build native ARM and AArch64 GDB in C++. No regression in test. Done. TCWG-446. Done. [1/10]. * Fix GDB internal error in gdb.thread/watchpoint-fork.exp on AArch64. [2/10] * Upstream patches review [2/10] ** Review patches on arm gdbserver software single step V3. Some patches are approved, but V4 is also needed for the rest. ** Review all-stop on non-stop patches. ** Discuss whether we need single step in fast tracepoint. Ongoing. # Plan # * One day off on Monday. * Understand ST's jtag probe and help them to make use of multi-arch in GDB. * Look into timeout in random-signal.exp. * TCWG-156, GDB test parity between AArch64 and X86_64. * TCWG-460, follow up on the AArch64 GDBserver multi-arch work. -- Yao

10 years, 1 month

[ACTIVITY] 23 - 27 November 2015

by Kugan

== Progress == - tree re-assoc regression (2/10) - Found a test-case to reproduce it. - working on a patch - LuaJIT issue (6/10) * Setup luajit on aarch64 and tried it * tried to reproduce nginx issue with various configs without success - LTO (1/10) * aarch64 bootstrap * ran into an uninit warning issues looking into it - Misc (1/10) * gcc/bug list == Plan == * tree re-assoc * LTO

10 years, 1 month

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-toolchain