== This week ==
* GCC Modularization Project
- created initial patch for flattening cfgloop.h.
- created initial patch for flattening df.h.
== Next Week ==
- Finalizing patches for cfgloop.h and df.h.
- Continue working on flattening header files.
== Progress ==
* Zero/sign extension elimination with widening types (1/10)
- Addressing comments from the review
* BUG #398 #412 (5/10)
- built kernel revision with provided config and toolchain binary
release to reproduce gcc segafult. Couldn’t reproduce it. Since there
is no more details to reproduce, closed it as cant reproduce.
- Spec2k gcc optimization issue was reproduced and reduced test-case
was created.
- dumps shows that this issue could be related to splitting constants
for early during expand might be the root cause.
* Holiday (4/10)
== Plan ==
* Continue with Zero/sign extension.
* BUG #412
== Planned Leave ==
* 11/12/2014 to 24/12/2014 - 10 days
== Progress ==
* 2 days sick
* Lab move (2/6)
* Buildbots (TCWG-76 2/6)
- Created a buildmaster at Linaro to help local development
- Put a dragonboard as a slave, which lasted 2 days up
* Background (2/6)
- Code review, meetings, discussions, etc.
== Plan ==
* I have no idea
== Progress ==
* Building an ILP32 toolchain for AArch64 (3/10, TCWG-559)
- More work on tidying patches
- Trying to get a test environment for ILP32
* LLD for ARM and AArch64 (5/10)
- Submit more reloc cleanups for LLVM
- Patch review
- Reading code
* glibc patch review (1/10, CARD-341)
* Email, meetings, etc. (1/10)
== Issues ==
* OE on Junos no good for building toolchains
* Ubuntu on Junos still seems vaporware
* Running out of disk space on development machine (bought an external HD)
== Plan ==
* More work on LLD
* Try QEMU for ILP32 work
--
Will Newton
Toolchain Working Group, Linaro
ABE benchmarking - TCWG-360 [4/10]
* Implemented most of a solution to the 'must be in same network' restriction
libm exercising - TCWG-558 [4/10]
* lulesh generates needless calls to pow on AArch64 (as opposed to
'pow is slow')
** Working on a reduced test case
* Ran a chunk of benchfft, left a process searching the perf reports
for libm calls
* More chroot/glibc fiddling
* Decided Graph500 was unlikely to be interesting
Misc - [2/10]
=Plan=
On holiday Monday - Wednesday
More lulesh, benchfft results
Think about where to go next with libm exercising
Complete 'same network' workaround, test benchmark repeatability
Port benchmarking scripts to ABE repo
Get storage/automation started, if Rob has time
Hi All,
Currently linaro toolchain for arm-linux-gnueabihf built with crosstool-ng scripts uses prebuilt sysroot.
I am trying to build eglibc on my own without using prebuilt sysroot. I am not able to exactly create same layout in the library layout.
Linaro build layout looks:
gcc-linaro-arm-linux-gnueabihf-4.8-2014.01_linux\arm-linux-gnueabihf\libc\usr\lib --> arm-linux-gnueabi arm-linux-gnueabihf
one for soft float and other for hard float fp. Can anybody please tell how we tell build system to create directories like above while building eglibc?
I used following commands to build eglibc:
../src_eglibc/configure --disable-profile --without-gd --without-cvs --prefix=/usr libc_cv_forced_unwind=yes libc_cv_c_cleanup=yes --with-headers=<some_dir>/arm-linux-gnueabihf/libc/usr/include --host=arm-linux-gnueabihf
Make all
make install install_root= <some_dir>/arm-linux-gnueabihf/libc/
Thank you very much for your help.
//Mallikarjuna
Forwarding this message to the linaro toolchain list instead. I am not the person who should be supporting the Linaro ODP project with GCC questiosn; the toolchain team inside Linaro should be instead.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
________________________________________
From: Ola Liljedahl <ola.liljedahl(a)linaro.org>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 2:31 PM
To: lng-odp(a)lists.linaro.org; Pinski, Andrew
Subject: strange behavior in GCC for use of uninitialized variables
Consider the following code fragment (from real life):
#include <stdint.h>
typedef volatile uint32_t odp_atomic_u32_t;
static inline uint32_t odp_atomic_fetch_inc_u32(odp_atomic_u32_t *ptr)
{
return __sync_fetch_and_add(ptr, 1);
}
static inline void odp_spin(void)
{
#ifdef __SSE2__
__asm__ __volatile__ ("pause");
#else
__asm__ __volatile__ ("rep; nop");
#endif
}
typedef struct {
int count;
odp_atomic_u32_t bar;
} odp_barrier_t;
void odp_barrier_wait(odp_barrier_t *barrier)
{
uint32_t count;
int wasless;
// wasless = barrier->bar < barrier->count; <<<lost on git add -p
__atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_SEQ_CST);
count = odp_atomic_fetch_inc_u32(&barrier->bar);
if (count == 2*barrier->count-1) {
barrier->bar = 0;
} else {
while ((barrier->bar < barrier->count) == wasless)
odp_spin();
}
__atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_SEQ_CST);
}
While fixing and cleaning up this code, the indicated line that
initializes 'wasless' was dropped (because it reappears in a later
patch in the patch set after the odp_atomic_fetch_inc call). To my
surprise, GCC did not complain when compiling this file (using -O2
-Wall). But it does complain when compiling with -O0 -Wall. With some
investigation, it seems like GCC understands that if a statement does
not have any side effects so it can optimize away everything,
including the usage of the uninitialized variable and thus also the
corresponding warning.
olli@macmini:~/hacking/gcc-wunit$ gcc -O2 -Wall -c odp_barrier.c
olli@macmini:~/hacking/gcc-wunit$ gcc -O0 -Wall -c odp_barrier.c
odp_barrier.c: In function ‘odp_barrier_wait’:
odp_barrier.c:42:9: warning: ‘wasless’ may be used uninitialized in
this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
while ((barrier->bar < barrier->count) == wasless)
^
However the proper code seems to be generated in both cases (there is
a "pause" instruction inlined or a call to odp_spin). So odp_spin() is
not without side effects and is not optimized away. This contradicts
my hypothesis.
Consider this minimalistic example:
olli@macmini:~/hacking/gcc-wunit$ cat wunit.c
#include <stdlib.h>
void test(void)
{
int wasless;
int wasmore;
if (wasless) (void)0;
if (wasmore) abort();
}
olli@macmini:~/hacking/gcc-wunit$ gcc -O0 -Wall -c wunit.c
wunit.c: In function ‘test’:
wunit.c:9:5: warning: ‘wasmore’ is used uninitialized in this function
[-Wuninitialized]
if (wasmore) abort();
^
olli@macmini:~/hacking/gcc-wunit$ gcc -O2 -Wall -c wunit.c
wunit.c: In function ‘test’:
wunit.c:9:5: warning: ‘wasmore’ is used uninitialized in this function
[-Wuninitialized]
if (wasmore) abort();
^
Here GCC warns when used with both -O0 and -O2 but only for the usage
where there is a side effect. The use of 'wasless' that does not lead
to any side-effects is ignored (and possibly rightly so, I can imagine
this is undefined behavior, fortunately I did not attempt to run this
program or my computer could have melted).
It is a bit worrying to me that instances of use of initialized
variables is sometimes missed by GCC. Both because of lack of
diagnostics for what is most likely a bug but also because I don't
understand why GCC does this and the implications of that (at least it
is a known unknown now).
-- Ola
cbuild2/ABE benchmarking - TCWG-360 [1/10]
* Attempted to use LAVA for benchmarks
** Fell over on lack of TCWG machines in same network
libm exercising - TCWG-558 [6/10]
* Much fiddling with chroots
* Some fiddling with benchfft
* Little actual progress
Meetings/mail/etc - [3/10]
=Plan=
libm exercising
* Run benchfft in chroots
* Investigate Graph500
* Validate existing results with consistent methodology
** Hopefully this is reaching the point of handle-turning
ABE benchmarking
* Port 'cbuild2' benchmarking to ABE repository
* Test ABE benchmarking in TCWG lab (and LAVA?)
* Test repeatability (assuming the above go well)
* Get storage/automation started, if Rob has time
Holiday *next* week (Tuesday and Wednesday, perhaps Monday as well)