RAG:
Red:
Amber: DATE/QEMU conference still hasn't confirmed I have a place...
Green: qemu-linaro RC2 prerelease uploaded
Current Milestones:
| Planned | Estimate | Actual |
first qemu-linaro release | 2011-02-08 | 2011-02-08 | |
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 | 2010-01-25 | 2010-01-25 | handed off |
* maintain-beagle-models:
+ RC1 packaging flushed out some bugs:
++ we include some binary blobs which we're better not distributing:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu-linaro/+bug/709965
++ a couple of array overruns don't compile with our picky armel gcc:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu-linaro/+bug/709711https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu-linaro/+bug/711272
(both fixes sent and applied upstream)
++ we ought to include a fix for the "swp" in qemu-lock.h:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/81205/
(patch sent upstream, no comment on it yet)
+ ...so I have rolled an RC2 tarball with these fixed
+ investigated why USB keyboard model doesn't work: it turns out
that the OMAP host USB model is basically just a stub
+ some warnings from qemu about bad width accesses are a symptom of
a nasty disagreement between gcc and the kernel about getting atomic
32 bit accesses:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg113002.html
+ warnings from qemu about access to a nonexistent i2c register
appear to be a kernel bug in the i2c driver for OMAP36xx:
https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/linux-linaro/+bug/645324
+ investigated a hang running images built with linaro-media-create's
--swap_file option. Still digging but I suspect the Linux driver
doesn't cope with an MMC card which can erase in zero time...
* merge-correctness-fixes
+ the usual upstream mailing list monitoring and code review
+ sent patch for PLI and hint space decoding fixes:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/81711/
* misc
+ some non-Linaro time this week; may be more next week
+ some advance planning of what we might want to do with QEMU
in the future
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
Hi,
* I continued to setup the pandaboad but ran into #708883
- tested vaious various hwpacks and headless images
- used different power supplies and several SD cards
- built various test kernels from the linux-linaro-natty.git
* looked into the crash utility
* https://wiki.linaro.org/KenWerner/Sandbox/crash-utility#future%20areas
Regards
Ken
Trying to build qemu on a beagle board:
CC sparc64-linux-user/translate.o
cc1: out of memory allocating 26975704 bytes after a total of 70742016 bytes
# ls -lh target-sparc/translate.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 191K Jan 31 12:05 target-sparc/translate.c
ie gcc wants (at least) 100M of RAM trying to compile a 190K sourcefile.
(and probably more overall since the board has 500MB RAM total and
it hit the out-of-memory condition).
This seems a bit excessive to me, but do we consider it enough of
a bug to be worth looking into?
(I believe this source file has caused compile failures on the buildds
too, which have rather more RAM/swap than my beagle.)
-- PMM
Hello,
Profiling Denbech:
* The profiling information on x86 indicate that some benchmarks might need
to run longer as helper functions such as t_run_test are reported to be
hot.
So I've increased the time each benchmark is executed and will continue to
experiment with that for the problematic benchmarks until I start to see
more reasonable results.
* Opened PR711819 after having an ICE running DENbench with trunk (natively
built on ARM machine).
- I've started to look at an old patch for SMS that was written in 2005 by
colleague; Mostafa Hagog; to place the register moves in free slots.
Currently, they are placed greedily before each def thats needs them.
Thanks,
Revital
Hi,
I continued to work on vect_interleave and vect_extract implementation on NEON:
* debugged the compiler to find out what's the problem with
neon_vzip/vuzp<mode>_internal
* fixed it following Uli's advice
* checked how neon_vzip/vuzp<mode>_internal work for intrinsics by
writing tests
* fixed the patch according to Uli's comments
* now fully testing the patch
Thanks,
Ira
Hi,
I am trying to implement interleave_high/low and extract_even/odd
using vzip and vuzp instructions. I am attaching a patch that attempts
to do that. It uses already existing neon_vzip<mode>_internal. The
problem with it is that it doesn't express the fact that the two
outputs of vzip depend on both inputs, which causes wrong code
generation in CSE:
for
(a,b)<- vzip (c,d)
and
(e,f) <- vzip (g,d)
CSE decides that b==f, since on RTL level b and f depend only on d.
Here is neon_vzip<mode>_internal:
(define_insn "neon_vzip<mode>_internal"
[(set (match_operand:VDQW 0 "s_register_operand" "=w")
(unspec:VDQW [(match_operand:VDQW 1 "s_register_operand" "0")]
UNSPEC_VZIP1))
(set (match_operand:VDQW 2 "s_register_operand" "=w")
(unspec:VDQW [(match_operand:VDQW 3 "s_register_operand" "2")]
UNSPEC_VZIP2))]
"TARGET_NEON"
"vzip.<V_sz_elem>\t%<V_reg>0, %<V_reg>2"
[(set (attr "neon_type")
(if_then_else (ne (symbol_ref "<Is_d_reg>") (const_int 0))
(const_string "neon_bp_simple")
(const_string "neon_bp_3cycle")))]
)
Is there a way to properly mark the dependence?
Thanks,
Ira
Hi; this is a note to say that we have now produced a prerelease
tarball of qemu-linaro. (The first formal qemu-linaro release will
happen in sync with other toolchain group releases on 8th Feb.)
This prerelease is primarily to pipeclean the release process and
to allow work to start on producing Ubuntu and Linaro packages;
however it does include a number of useful bugfixes which are
required if you want to be able to boot a recent Linaro snapshot
on the beagle model. So the enthusiastic might like to build it
from source and give it a spin.
Like the Linaro kernel trees, the qemu-linaro tree aims to only
include patches we are confident will go upstream; at the moment
this means the OMAP3 support and ARM correctness fixes from
the qemu-meego tree, based on the qemu upstream trunk.
You can download the source tarball from:
https://launchpad.net/qemu-linaro/+milestone/2011.02
-- Peter Maydell
Hi,
What do people understand to be the expected semantics of IT blocks
in the cases below, of which there has been some confusion
in relation to a recent Qt issue.
The code in question had a sequence something like:
comparison
IT... EQ
blahEQ
TEQ
BEQ
The important bits here are that we have an IT EQ block and two special cases:
1) There is a TEQ in the IT block - are all comparisons in the block
allowed and do their effects immediately take
effect? As far as I can tell this is allowed and any flag changes are
used straight away;
2) There is a BEQ at the end of the IT block, as far as I can tell,
as long as the destination of the BEQ is close it shouldn't
make any difference if the BEQ is included in the IT block or not.
Does that match everyone elses understanding?
Dave
