linaro-toolchain

linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org

16 participants
5599 discussions

by Revital Eres

Hello, - Continued analysing DENbench benchmarks. - Discussed the SMS patched with Ayal Zaks (SMS maintainer). - Booked the flights for Budapest summit. Thanks, Revital

14 years, 1 month

[ACTIVITY] April 27-28

by Ira Rosen

Hi, gcc-linaro/4.6 - if-conversion improvement (needed to vectorize Telecom/viterbi) - merged - auto-detection of vector size - proposed for merging GCC FSF - fixed PR 48765 on trunk - completed testig of vzip fix (PR 48252) on gcc 4.5 and gcc 4.6 Ira

14 years, 1 month

[ACTIVITY] weekly status

by Ken Werner

Hi, libunwind: * the initial support for resuming at a certain stack frame went upsream * learned about the various signal frame layouts on ARM * RT frames, non-RT frames for present and pre 2.6.18 kernels * implemented support for RT signal frame detection on ARM * started to implement support for unw_resume if signal frames are involved * attended a class on Friday Note: Monday was a public holiday. Regards Ken

14 years, 2 months

[ACTIVITY] Apr 26 - Apr 29

by Ulrich Weigand

== GDB == * Committed series of patches to fix bug #615978 (Failure to software single-step into signal handler) to mainline and Linaro GDB. * Drafted blueprint linaro-toolchain-o-cross-debug == GCC == * Split bug #771900 (Linaro GCC 4.5 switch optimization breaks profiled bootstrap) off bug #759409 (Profiled bootstrap fails in GCC 4.5). Tracked down root cause of bug #759409 / PR middle-end/43085, and posted fix to gcc-patches. 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

14 years, 2 months

Toolchain summit blueprints

by Michael Hope

Hi there. The toolchain session blueprints for the summit are now up on Launchpad: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/linaro-toolchain?searchtext=toolchain-o You can check out the schedule here: http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-o/track/linaro-toolchain/ although it's really only for show at the moment. Expect things to jump around as the constraints kick in. Please go through these blueprints and subscribe yourself to them. You can check your list of blueprints at: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/people/+me?searchtext=toolchain-o -- Michael

14 years, 2 months

"BFD_ASSERT (out_attr[Tag_ABI_HardFP_use].i == 0) " assert

by Barry Song

Hi All, I found Jie has committed a patch "http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-05/msg00083.html". I am using the newest binary utils(2.21) and encounted the following ASSERT in arm_elf32.c: + if (out_attr[i].i == 0) + { + BFD_ASSERT (out_attr[Tag_ABI_HardFP_use].i == 0); My compiling options are as below, ASM_FLAGS := \ -gdwarf-2 \ -mfpu=vfp \ -mfloat-abi=softfp \ -mthumb-interwork C_FLAGS := \ $(ASM_FLAGS) \ -O3 -Wno-all \ -fno-optimize-sibling-calls \ -mlong-calls \ -ffunction-sections \ CPP_FLAGS := \ -fno-rtti \ -fno-exceptions \ LINK_FLAGS := \ --gc-sections -nostdlib \ -L ../stdlib \ -Wl,--as-needed \ -Wl,-no-enum-size-warning \ --cref \ ARFLAGS := \ rcs Can anyone give me any tip about why the assert is triggered? I have reported a bug here: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12700 But not sure whether it is a bug. -barry

14 years, 2 months

__aeabi_uldivmod undefined for sound/soc/codecs/snd-soc-wm8974.ko, snd-soc-wm8940.ko and snd-soc-wm8510.ko

by Barry Song

Hi All, I am using 2011.3 4.5 linaro GCC(armv7-a vfpv3d16) to compile kernel and modules. I select to compile all codecs as modules: "config SND_SOC_ALL_CODECS tristate "Build all ASoC CODEC drivers" " as M and I2C/SPI too. Then in the kernel dir, run "make" to get both vmlinux and modules, I found snd-soc-wm8974.ko, snd-soc-wm8940.ko and snd-soc-wm8510.ko will fail due to "__aeabi_uldivmod undefined". If i comment do_div() in these codec drivers, this issue will disappear. But it is strange there are many codecs which use do_div() too, for example: sound/soc/codecs/max98088.c sound/soc/codecs/max9850.c sound/soc/codecs/wm8350.c sound/soc/codecs/wm8400.c sound/soc/codecs/wm8510.c sound/soc/codecs/wm8580.c sound/soc/codecs/wm8753.c sound/soc/codecs/wm8804.c sound/soc/codecs/wm8900.c sound/soc/codecs/wm8904.c sound/soc/codecs/wm8940.c sound/soc/codecs/wm8955.c sound/soc/codecs/wm8960.c sound/soc/codecs/wm8974.c sound/soc/codecs/wm8978.c sound/soc/codecs/wm8985.c sound/soc/codecs/wm8990.c sound/soc/codecs/wm8991.c sound/soc/codecs/wm8993.c sound/soc/codecs/wm8994.c sound/soc/codecs/wm8995.c sound/soc/codecs/wm9081.c but others can pass the compiling except those 3 modules. Is it due to a wrong optimization by gcc? Other information: 1. old tool-chains we are using can pass the compiling of the 3 modules. 2. If i built all codecs into kernel image, these 3 drivers don't report error while compiling. Thanks Barry

14 years, 2 months

Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: prevent compilers from optimising pll calculation into __aeabi__uldivmod

by Barry Song

2011/4/27 Mark Brown <broonie(a)opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 04:50:12PM +0800, Barry Song wrote: > > > Marking pll_factors() as noinline or putting asm("" : "+r"(source)); before the > > call to do_div() works around the problem. > > If we do have to do something in the callers rather than in do_div() the > annotation seems substantially more taseful than inserting a random asm > into the code. I agree. for this patch which will not be applied, people can just get information about how to workaround the gcc issue while they have the same problem. google can find there are other people who failed to compile wm8974 module too. eg. http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/03/30/%23ubuntu-arm.txt Andrew Stubbs, Michael Hope in Linaro's toolchain team are working hard on this gcc issue. there have been many update today: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48783

14 years, 2 months

-O2 cause optimization issues while va parameters functions

by Barry Song

Hi All, As i have frequently said, we are using 2011.3 4.5 linaro gcc. For the following codes, if we compile it by -O2, it will crash with "segment fault", if we just comment " if(unifi_debug >= level) {", all will be ok. If we don't compile it by -O2, all will be ok too. #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <stdarg.h> #define DEBUG_BUFFER_SIZE 80 int unifi_debug = 5; void unifi_trace(void* ospriv, int level, const char *fmt, ...) { static char s[DEBUG_BUFFER_SIZE]; va_list args; unsigned int len; if(unifi_debug >= level) { va_start(args, fmt); len = vsnprintf(&(s)[0], (DEBUG_BUFFER_SIZE), fmt, args); va_end(args); if (len >= DEBUG_BUFFER_SIZE) { (s)[DEBUG_BUFFER_SIZE - 2] = '\n'; (s)[DEBUG_BUFFER_SIZE - 1] = 0; } printf("%s", s); } } int main(void) { char *prog = "/usr/sbin/unififw"; unifi_trace(NULL, 1, "start %s\n", prog); return 0; } Thanks Barry

14 years, 2 months

Sessions for the summit

by Michael Hope

Hi there. A first-pass list of summit sessions is up at: https://wiki.linaro.org/MichaelHope/Sandbox/1111Blueprints The next step is to investigate these areas and come up with a basic plan that can be discussed during the summit. I've put your names against the sessions as follows: Andrew: Broad tuning Dave: String routines everywhere Dave: QEMU topic #2 Doug: STM support Ira: Vectoriser and NEON performance Ken: 64 bit sync primitives Ken: Good backtracing Ken: End-developer tools bluesky Michael: Publish benchmarking of the toolchain Michael: Binary builds Michael: Deeper validation Peter: QEMU bluesky Ramana: Thumb-2 performance brainstorm Ramana: GCC backend rework Ulrich: GDB as a cross-debugger Ira and Dave, I know you won't be at the summit but we'll see about being able to call in. Could you all please have a read of the outline, investigate these topics, and draft up a blueprint-style list of work items to achieve it? Record any notes in the sandbox page[5] or in a child page if needed. Larger topics may warrant a specification[1]. I'd like these done by the end of next week. I'd expect to spend up to a day on the topics you already understand and more on broad topics. For reference, the see the draft TRs[2] and spreadsheet [3]. I've added some GDB topics to the spreadsheet that still need to go onto the wiki page. The outlines should touch each of these TRs in some way so let me know if I've missed anything. There's more good information on the process and style at: https://wiki.linaro.org/Process/Blueprints https://wiki.linaro.org/Process/WorkItemsHowto https://wiki.linaro.org/Resources/FAQ Questions? Need more detail? Let me know. -- Michael [1] https://wiki.linaro.org/Process/SpecTemplate [2] https://wiki.linaro.org/Cycles/1111/TechnicalTopics/Toolchain [3] https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ap7fWLePADFVdHkxYy1INTZmMEd4bkwxSG… [4] there is no 4... [5] https://wiki.linaro.org/MichaelHope/Sandbox/1111Blueprints

14 years, 2 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-toolchain