linaro-toolchain

linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org

7 participants
5634 discussions

[ACTIVITY] 24 - 28 November 2014

by Venkataramanan Kumar

Back from Vacation 24, 26, 27 and 28 November. (8/10) = Progress == * TSAN support for Aarch64 (1/10) * Emails, linaro and AMD status meetings. (1/10) 1-1 with maxim == Plan == * TSAN support for Aarch64. * Fix Linaro Bug 863 * catchup emails and other discussions

10 years, 9 months

[Weekly] 24-28 NOV 2014

by Michael Collison

== This week == * GCC Modularization Project (5/10) - Flattening header files - tree-core.h - Building revealed required flattening other include files: c-common.h and tree.h - c-common.h and tree.h - Flattening is in progress - cfgloop.h - Reviewed, bootstraped and tested patch from Prathamesh * Misc (1/10) - Conference calls * Thanksgiving Holiday, November 27-28th (4/10) == Next week == - Complete tree-core.h and associated header file flattening - submit tree-core.h flattening patch - Submit Prathamesh patches for cfgloop.h

10 years, 9 months

[ACTIVITY] 24-28 November 2014

by Prathamesh Kulkarni

== 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.

10 years, 9 months

[ACTIVITY] 24-28 November 2014

by Kugan

== 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

10 years, 9 months

[ACTIVITY] 24-28 November 2014

by Christophe Lyon

== Progress == * GCC trunk/4.9 cross-validation (1/10) - monitoring - tracking cause of spurious "interrupted system call" - testing small changes in harness * AArch64 sanitizers (2/10) - resumed discussion with Maxim/Arnd, the situation is clearer now - started looking at running asan tests in llvm environment (Thanks Renato) * Linaro GCC releases (2/10) - 2014.12 backports reviews - improved scripts to help speed up reviews * Neon intrinsics tests (2/10) - continuing to convert the existing testsuite to dejagnu - checking ARM's aarch64_be patches * Misc (3/10) - calls, meetings, ... == Next == * Neon intrinsics * AArch64 sanitizers * cbuild2 (improve backport-test and tcwgweb)

10 years, 9 months

[ACTIVITY] Week 48

by Renato Golin

== 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

10 years, 9 months

[ACTIVITY] 24 - 28 November 2014

by Will Newton

== 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

10 years, 9 months

[ACTIVITY] 24th - 28th November

by Bernie Ogden

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

10 years, 9 months

building eglibc for arm-linux-gnueabihf tools with multilib support

by Mallikarjun.Gouda＠freescale.com

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

10 years, 9 months

Fw: strange behavior in GCC for use of uninitialized variables

by Pinski, Andrew

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

10 years, 9 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-toolchain