The patch tracking conversation has got a little out-of-hand, and I know
I've misunderstood some of the features Michael has been proposing, and
I suspect vice versa.
So, here's my attempt to compare and contrast the various advantages,
disadvantages, and differences of the ideas so far, by means of use cases.
Looking at this, I think we can probably come up with a solution that
uses the good bits from each (maybe method 1 with the milestone/status
policy from method 2, for example).
Please read the below, and let me know if I left anything out, or if I
misunderstood something.
Andrew
====
For the purposes of this document:
* Method 0 is my original patch tracker, here:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/GCC4.5UpstreamPatches
* Method 1 is Michael's proposed patch tracker, here:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/PatchTracking#Method%201
and here: http://ex.seabright.co.nz/helpers/patchtrack
* Method 2 is my proposed system, here:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/PatchTracking#Method%202
---------------------------------------------------------
1. What does a user have to do to get a patch tracked?
Method 0:
Nothing. New rows are added to the wiki page regularly by a script and
cron-job.
Method 1:
Nothing. The tracking report is updated regularly.
Method 2:
Nothing. New tickets are created automatically, regularly.
------------------------------------------------------------
2. How to find tracking information for a revision?
Method 0:
Search the wiki page for the revision number.
Method 1:
Goto the report page, click through to all the various associated
tickets, if any.
Method 2:
Go to launchpad, and search for "r123456", or select it from the list in
the relevant gcc-linaro-tracking milestone.
------------------------------------------------------------
3. How to find tracking information for a bug fix?
Method 0:
Search the wiki page for the bug number - hopefully somebody has posted
a link. Alternatively, the first line of the commit message will be
present. If that doesn't work, then find the revision number by other
means (bzr).
Method 1:
Go to the bug ticket - it should be there, or a link to another bug that
has it. Alternatively, go to the tracker report page, and search for the
commit message. If that fails try to identify the revision number by
other means (bzr)
Method 2:
Go to the bug ticket - if the bug was committed with --fixes, there will
be a link to the tracking ticket. Alternatively, search
gcc-linaro-tracking to find the commit message. If that fails try to
identify the revision number by other means (bzr)
----------------------------------------------------------
4. How to add new tracking information?
Method 0:
Edit the wiki page.
Method 1:
Add the new information to one or all of the associated bugs, if any. If
there are no existing tickets, create a new ticket (using the link on
the tracker report) and put the information there.
Method 2:
Add the information to the ticket.
-----------------------------------------------------------
5. How to indicate that the bug is upstream?
Method 0:
Edit the wiki page, set the bgcolor to green.
Method 1:
Assign all the bug tickets to a gcc-linaro-tracking milestone.
Method 2:
Mark the bug "Fix committed". Ensure that the ticket has the correct
milestone.
------------------------------------------------------------
6. How to list all patches that need to go upstream?
Method 0:
View the wiki page - the patches are highlighted in red and yellow.
Method 1:
View the tracker report - the patches are highlighted in red, yellow,
and orange.
(Note that launchpad will only list the patches that already had a
ticket attached, or else somebody has create one. This will usually only
include patches where somebody had something to say about it.)
Method 2:
All open bugs in gcc-linaro-tracking.
-------------------------------------------------------------
7. How to list all patches that need forwarding on rebase from 4.5 to 4.6?
Method 0:
Any patches marked in red or yellow on the wiki page need forwarding.
Any patches marked in green with an upstream landing number of 4.7 or
higher also need forwarding. (This information is not yet encoded in the
page, but it's a wiki, so flexibility is not a problem.)
Any patches in grey also need considering. Some are uninteresting
version bumps and such. Some are patches we plan to carry forever.
Probably a new colour could be used to make this clearer - it's a wiki.
Method 1:
Any patches in the report not yet upstream need forwarding. Any patches
in launchpad against the 4.7 milestone (or higher) also need forwarding.
Any patches in the "never" milestone also need considering. Some might
be ancient patches we used to carry in 4.4, but have since been dropped.
Some will be patches we intend to carry.
Method 2:
All patches against the 4.7 milestone, both open and closed (modify the
launchpad search criteria) need forwarding. All patches in the
"series:never,milestone:4.5" milestone in the "won't fix" state need
forwarding.
(Patches we don't intend to carry forward will be "closed", and patches
from 4.4 won't be in "series:never,milestone:4.5", so we never have to
worry about those.)
------------------------------------------------------------------
8. How to we track what patches have been forwarded on rebase already?
Method 0:
It's a wiki, add a column.
Method 1:
Committing the patch on a new branch will (with --fixes) will cause
launchpad to list the commit on the bug page. There's no way to query
this though.
Method 2:
Committing the patch on a new branch will give a "new" patch to track.
The trackerbot will create a new ticket for this revision. The old
ticket will be marked as a "duplicate" of the new one (manually, or
automatically). The new bugs will have "4.6/r123456" in the subject
line, so can be easily be differentiated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
9. What else needs doing on a rebase?
Method 0:
Create a new page with a new table. Forward the information from the old
table manually, by editing the wiki.
Method 1:
Create a new tracker report.
Method 2:
Set up the trackerbot on the new branch.
------------------------------------------------------------------
10. What prompts users to use the system?
Method 0:
Nothing. (Management nagging.)
Method 1:
Nothing mentioned so far.
Method 2:
The bug is always assigned to somebody. They'll be notified by email,
and it will show up on their launchpad pages.
------------------------------------------------------------------
11. What happens when a bug produces multiple patches?
Method 0:
Multiple lines in the table, initially. But, it's a wiki, so they can be
edited, moved around, and coalesced as required.
Method 1:
The same bug has to track multiple patches.
????? How does that work with the 'affects gcc-linaro-tracking' lines?
Method 2:
One ticket per commit. Each is tracked separately, but the user is free
to mark each ticket as a duplicate of the other, and/or move the data
from one ticket to another.
------------------------------------------------------------------
12. What happens when one commit fixes multiple bugs?
Method 0:
Nothing special.
Method 1:
Multiple bugs will track the same submission process. Either the user
must post all the data to all the bugs, or one bug must get (manually)
appointed the master bug, and the others have links posted.
Method 2:
One ticket will be created to track the patch. The ticket will contain
links to all the bugs, and each bug will contain a back-link. This is
very little different to the normal case.
I've fleshed out a potential way of tracking patches at:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/PatchTracking#Method%201
It's not too bad if you're a developer. The extra steps are:
* Create a ticket
* Mark that ticket as affecting upstream
* Change the status as the patch evolves
* Mark where the patch lands when finished
This is all done through Launchpad's existing interface.
Thoughts?
-- Michael
Sorry about these. Hopefully I'm done.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Michael Hope <620229(a)bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> Public bug reported:
>
> Related: lp:gcc-linaro/4.5,revno=99360
>
> Code hoisting improvements
>
> Merged from SourceryG++
>
> (Backport from FSF)
>
> ** Affects: gcc-linaro
> Importance: Undecided
> Status: New
>
> ** Affects: gcc-linaro/4.5
> Importance: Undecided
> Status: New
>
>
> ** Tags: revision
>
> --
> [4.5:r99360] Code hoisting improvements
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/620229
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of the bug.
>
> Status in Linaro GCC: New
> Status in Linaro GCC 4.5 series: New
>
> Bug description:
> Related: lp:gcc-linaro/4.5,revno=99360
>
> Code hoisting improvements
>
> Merged from SourceryG++
>
> (Backport from FSF)
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this bug, go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/+bug/620229/+subscribe
>
I know that Dhrystone isn't a very good benchmark, but it's still interesting:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Benchmarks/Dhrystone
If we can get twice the performance out of strcpy() and memcpy() then
the Dhrystone result should go up by almost 30 %. It would make a
nice headline at least :)
-- Michael
...are available here:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2010-08-16
Activity reports are included below.
-- Michael
Attendees
Name Email IRC Nick
Andrew Stubbs andrew.stubbs(a)linaro.org ams
Julian Brown julian(a)codesourcery.com jbrown
Loïc Minier loic.minier(a)linaro.org lool
Matt Gretton-Dann ARM
Matthias Klose doko(a)canonical.com doko
Michael Hope michael.hope(a)linaro.org michaelh
Peter Maydell peter.maydell(a)linaro.org pm215
Ulrich Weigand ulrich.weigand(a)linaro.org uweigand
Yao Qi yao.qi(a)linaro.org yao
Agenda
• Benchmarks
□ ffmpeg (h.264), libmad (mp3), LAPACK, CoreMark, Dhrystone, and memcpy()
□ EEMBC
□ Methods of benchmarking
• Patch tracking
□ Minimum features
□ Discovering upstream patches to backport
□ Example version at http://ex.seabright.co.nz/helpers/patchtrack
□ Ticket view at http://ex.seabright.co.nz/helpers/tickets
• Upstream tracking
□ Ubuntu tracks release+SVN. What should we do?
• memcpy() and friends
□ https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/StringRoutines
□ Copyright issues with EGLIBC
• Hardware status
• Creating blueprints
• Connecting with other groups
• Open tickets
□ 616141 Backport the sync_* primitive fixes
□ 590696 fix wrong use of objdump during cross build
□ 600277 Backport ARM Cortex A9 scheduling changes
□ 605059 Merge 4.4.5
Action Items from this Meeting
• ACTION: Michael to think about synchronising Linaro releases with upstream
• ACTION: Michael to organise a call with Matthias, Loic to continue the
topic
• ACTION: Michael to write up and email patch tracker mechanics for review
• ACTION: Ulrich to add his time away to the Linaro calendar
• ACTION: Michael and Ulrich to add GDB new features as blueprints to
Launchpad
• ACTION: Andrew to look into frequent runs of CSL benchmarks
• ACTION: Michael to make sure Linaro has a FSF copyright assignment
agreement
Action Items from Previous Meeting
• DONE: Richard to ask the GCC developers on IRC what the status of 4.4.5 is
□ Matthias talked with Jacob and they expect a release at the end of
August
• DONE: Andrew to merge 4.5.1 and the Firefox fix by 2010-08-17
• DONE: Ulrich to ticket GDB items
• DONE: Michael to understand whiteboards as a way of organising features
Minutes
Upstream patches:
• Loic, Matthias, and Michael discussed tracking the upstream release branch
• Upstream has a roughly three week cycle on patch releases
• Matthias tracks this release branch and pulls in SVN as a patch into Ubuntu
• Michael is concerned about the extra work, pulling a partial
□ feature, catching a regression, fallout due to releasing something that
upstream hasn't released,
• Release branches are very stable. Chance of a regression is low
• Better chance of getting a problem fixed upstream if caught early before
the release
• Loic: harder to track upstream
• Loic: also harder to identify a Linaro release -
FSF-4.4.4+svr12345+bzr6789...
• Matthias spoke with Jacob in GCC. They expect a release at the end of
□ August
• Michael prefers basing on released versions only
• Michael also wants to be able to reproduce any issues found in Ubuntu. Hard
at the
□ moment as Ubuntu runs Linaro plus a reasonably large set of patches
ts to be able
• One approach: merge the day after the Linaro release. Gives the maximum
time for
□ testing. Still a month behind, still have Ubuntu GCC != Linaro GCC
• Matthias
□ Would continue to keep diff between Linaro and upstream
□ Is doing changes upstream
□ Would have to maintain those separately
□ If there are release critical changes, would have to do them himself
• Discussed different phase of Linaro GCC vs Ubuntu - the releases won't be
in sync so there will always be a need for release critical fixes in Ubuntu
• ACTION: Michael to think about synchronising Linaro releases with upstream
□ Drift the Linaro release to be a week later than the upstream release
• Andrew wasn't concerned. Noted that the release branches are really good
• ACTION: Michael to organise a call with Matthias, Loic to continue the
topic
Patch tracking:
• Cortex-A5 changes are coming into Linaro
• Michael did a quick show and tell on the patch tracker hack
• ACTION: Michael to write up and email patch tracker mechanics for review
Other topics:
• Ulrich is out on vacation next week
• ACTION: Ulrich to add his time away to the Linaro calendar
• ACTION: Michael and Ulrich to add GDB new features as blueprints to
Launchpad
• Michael noted that we use bzr for version control wherever possible,
including for QEMU
• Michael asked Andrew if we could start regular runs of the commonly used
benchmark
• ACTION: Andrew to look into frequent runs of CSL benchmarks
• String routines
□ Michael talked with upstream and they greatly prefer FSF+LGPL
□ ACTION: Michael to make sure Linaro has a FSF copyright assignment
agreement
• Loic mentioned Valgrind patches
□ Peter is interested in helping
Next meeting is a stand-up meeting on 2010-18-11 on the public code.
-- Julian Brown
== GCC 4.5 bugs in Launchpad ==
* Attempted to reproduce bugs against Linaro GCC 4.5 in
Launchpad: issues #614184, #614185 and #614186. The last of these has
been closed as invalid by the submitter already, and the first two don't
seem to reproduce using a cross-compiler (i.e. using CS's build
machinery), nor with a natively-bootstrapped bzr head build (as of some
day last week). So, no real progress there.
== GCC 4.5 vectorization improvements ==
* Started tracking down the causes of some failures in vect.exp:
pr43430-1.c failed because of missing vector comparison support. This
seemed relatively straightforward to implement using NEON instructions,
so I had a go at doing that. Similarly another test fails (vect-35.c)
because of missing support for widening/narrowing patterns, though I'm
still investigating a fix for that.
-- Andrew Stubbs
== Linaro GCC releases ==
* Merged GCC 4.5.1 into the Linaro sources.
* Respun the 4.5-2010.08 release.
== Linaro GCC 4.5 ==
* Continued pushing SG++ patches into Linaro. I'm now most of the way
through these, but I had hoped to have had it done by now.
== Other ==
* Lost a few hours to internet outages. An engineer came out and
changed all the connections, so hopefully that's solved the problem.
It seems the recent bad weather had got into the underground cables
between here and the street cabinet. It's fibre from there, so in
theory it must be local.
* Took Wednesday as vacation.
-- Peter Maydell
Subject: [weekly][linaro] report week 32
RAG:
Red: None
Amber: ARM legal OK for qemu contributions
Green: booted versatile+virtio kernel on qemu
Milestones: none as yet
Progress:
virtio-system:
- identified which qemu patches give a qemu which can boot linaro
alpha-3 on beagle emulation
- built a kernel for 'versatile' flavour with virtio support
- found some patches from qemu upstream which are needed for
newer versatile kernels to boot
- got my versatile kernel running on qemu with the linaro
rootfs mounted via virtio
- put various qemu changes/patches into a git tree, so (a) I
know what I changed and (b) as an exercise in learning git
Issues: none
Plans:
virtio-system:
- get versatile to boot *without* virtio for comparison
- find an io benchmark and do some benchmarking
qemu-focused-kernel:
- flesh out this blueprint
Absences:
None planned.
-- Chung-Lin Tang
== libffi VFP hard-float support ==
Testsuite fixes and final tuning before submitting. Had to port some
stuff from the GCC testsuite to let libffi's testsuite support a
dg-skip-if option, to skip some variadic function tests based on
compiler options (skip when -mfloat-abi=hard), and I am not a
DejaGNU/expect/Tcl expert...:P Whole patch was submitted to main
libffi mailing list on Sunday, waiting for feedback.
(see http://sourceware.org/ml/libffi-discuss/2010/msg00153.html)
== This week ==
* See if any feedback on libffi patch.
* Start Linaro 4.5 EEMBC comparisons.
* Catch up on GCC work.
-- Yao Qi
== Linaro GCC ==
* Pinged ARM backend maintainer for my patch to GCC PR45094. Still
no response.
* Submit my patch on ARM target triplet in gcc-patches. With Dan's
help, got GCC write access. Checked in my patch.
* Update status of LP bugs. Mark them as Fix Released since
failures go away in gcc-linaro-4.4-2010.08-0.
== Linaro GDB ==
* Search something about GDB from my brain, like gdb test,
tcl/expect, ptrace/breakpointetc. Fortunately, most of
them are still there. :)
* LP:615997 gdb.dwarf2/dw2-ref-missing-frame.exp failure
Failure is caused by alignment of test case. Sent a patch to
gdb-patches, and revise it with Dan's help.
* LP:615989 gdb.base/pending.exp
Failure is caused by wrong code in .debug_line. Failure goes away
when it is compiled by gcc-linaro-4.5-2010.08-1.
Open a gcc bug LP:617384.
* LP:615995 gdb.base/watch-vfork.exp : Watchpoint triggers after
vfork (sw) (timeout)
Reproduce it on x86. GDB is waiting endlessly between
TARGET_WAITKIND_FORKED and TARGET_WAITKIND_VFORK_DONE. Looks like
child of debuggee hangs on 'signal'.
== This Week ==
* Look into LP:615995 deeply, and other linaro gdb bugs.
Hi
I'm concerned that the workaround for apr was just uploaded in the form
of disabling process shared mutexes (see LP #599874), but we didn't
address or investigate the root cause in eglibc.
Would someone be able to look at LP #604753 where the issue is tracked?
Thanks!
--
Loïc Minier
...is available at:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2010-08-16
-- Michael
Agenda
• Benchmarks
□ ffmpeg (h.264), libmad (mp3), LAPACK, CoreMark, Dhrystone, and memcpy()
□ EEMBC
□ Methods of benchmarking
• Patch tracking
□ Minimum features
□ Discovering upstream patches to backport
□ Example version at http://ex.seabright.co.nz/helpers/patchtrack
□ Ticket view at http://ex.seabright.co.nz/helpers/tickets
• Upstream tracking
□ Ubuntu tracks release+SVN. What should we do?
• memcpy() and friends
□ https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/StringRoutines
□ Copyright issues with EGLIBC
• Hardware status
• Creating blueprints
• Connecting with other groups
• Open tickets
□ 616141 Backport the sync_* primitive fixes
□ 590696 fix wrong use of objdump during cross build
□ 600277 Backport ARM Cortex A9 scheduling changes
□ 605059 Merge 4.4.5
Blueprint Assignee
Initial delivery of Linaro GCC 4.4 ams
Cross Compiler Packages hrw
Action Items from this Meeting
• TBD
Action Items from Previous Meeting
• ACTION: Richard to ask the GCC developers on IRC what the status of 4.4.5
is
• ACTION: Andrew to merge 4.5.1 and the Firefox fix by 2010-08-17
• ACTION: Ulrich to ticket GDB items
• ACTION: Michael to understand whiteboards as a way of organising features
...are here:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2010-08-11
-- Michael
Attendees
• Name Email IRC Nick
Yao Qi yao.qi(a)linaro.org yao
Ulrich Weigand ulrich.weigand(a)linaro.org uweigand
Richard Earnshaw richard.earnshaw(a)arm.com rearnshaw
Peter Maydell peter.maydell(a)linaro.org pm215
Michael Hope michael.hope(a)linaro.org michaelh
Julian Brown julian(a)codesourcery.com jbrown
Chung-Lin Tang cltang(a)codesourcery.com cltang
Agenda
• Stand up call
Blueprint Assignee
Initial delivery of Linaro GCC 4.4 ams
Cross Compiler Packages hrw
Action Items from this Meeting
• ACTION: Michael to email his configure options to Julian
• ACTION: Richard, if he's going, will set up
Action Items from Previous Meeting
Minutes
• Julian
□ Continues to merge 4.4 into the CSL 4.5 branch
□ Andrew is pushing changes out to the Linaro branch
□ Can't reproduce some failures
□ ACTION: Michael to email his configure options to Julian
• Ulrich
□ Has been ticketing the GDB features and faults for him and Yao to work
on
• Yao
□ GCC patch has been approved upstream
□ Going through the GDB tickets
• Chung-Lin
□ Doing some last optimisations
□ Preparing to send the patch upstream
• Peter
□ Looking into virtio
□ Amit has been working on similar
□ Michael suggests getting on IRC and asking
□ Almost has approval to work publicly
• Richard
□ Issues were found with the sync fixes. These are being reworked
• Michael
□ Looked at benchmarks and string routines
□ Want the group to start pulling the A9 changes down
□ And other A9 pipeline changes
□ Richard suggests pulling Marcus's 4.4 sync primitives fix in too
• GCC Summit
□ Overlaps with UDS
□ Ulrich suggests a BoF session on the ARM toolchain
□ ACTION: Richard, if he's going, will set up
□ Not enough material for a paper at the moment
The next meeting is the stand up call on Friday.
I wanted to point somebody at this mailing list (linaro-toolchain),
and I noticed that it wasn't listed here:
https://wiki.linaro.org/GettingInvolved
which is the first place I tried. Is that deliberate, or just an oversight?
thanks
-- Peter Maydell
