linaro-toolchain

linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org

3 participants
5671 discussions

by Bernie Ogden

cbuild2 benchmarking - TCWG-360 [4/10] * SPEC 2006 cross-built binaries now running. Easy when you know how. libm exercising - CARD-1693 [4/10] * Understood improved libm usage on 1 benchmark. * Tried 3 more. 1 shows significantly more time in libm on AArch64 over AArch32. Meetings/mail/etc - [2/10] =Plan= cbuild2 benchmarking * Make sure reporting works * Get working in either LAVA or 'new TCWG infrastructure' * Test repeatability * Get SPEC 2000 working * Possibly have another go at building tools on AArch64 libm exerising * Keep working through the list of benchmarks * Hopefully reach the end and do some analysis

11 years, 2 months

[ACTIVITY] Week 45

by Yvan Roux

== Issues == * none. == Progress == * GCC 4.9 and 4.8 2014.11 (1/10) - Reviewed FSF branch Merges. * Lab move (3/10) - Cherry-picked cbuildv2 master patches in schroot-test - Created a new jenkins job to tst the "schroot lab move" branch - The job is able to build all the targets but validation still not works * Misc: (6/10) - Caught up with mails and irc logs - Prepared a patch that add __LINARO_[RELEASE|SPIN]__ macros. - Reviewed libatomic_ops upstream patch - Validate libunwind upstream patch - Various meetings. == Plan == * Back on backports * Tuesday off (11/11)

11 years, 2 months

[ACTIVITY] 3 - 7 November 2014

by Venkataramanan Kumar

= Progress == * TCWG-544 - Investigate core mark performance with both at -O3 with LTO + PGO (6/10) Different IPA inline decisions happening between Linaro and trunk. No major differences in other IPA passes. Trunk Inlines crcu32 and not inlines crcu16. Inlining crcu16 decreases instruction count. Honza pointed out a patch which inlines fucntions based on profile feedback and ignores max inlines parameters. It could be reason why trunk inlines crcu32 and then prevents inlining crcu16. Need to explore on this. * Bug fix - Linaro 849. Reproduced and tested it with trunk revision which fixes it. It looks to be same issue as upstream pr62308 (1/10) * Misc [3/10] Emails, linaro and AMD status meetings. 1-1 with inline mangers (Mev, Ryan). 1-1 with christophe. == Plan == * Debug and understand the inline differences trunk vs linaro compiler for core mark at -O3 with LTO + PGO. * Expecting one Aarch64 Enablement task. * Leave on 11/11/2014.

11 years, 2 months

[Weekly] 03-07 NOV 2014

by Michael Collison

== This week == * GCC Modularization Project (9/10) - Flattening header files - gimple-streamer.h, tree-streamer.h, lto-streamer.h - Additional updates based on review: - Created new header files to contain prototypes from .c files - Boostrapped changes - New changes being reviewed - tree-core.h, cfgloop.h, df.h - Removed unnecessary includes - Created new header files to contain exports from .c files * Misc. (1/10) - Conference calls == Next week == - Continue flattening of header files on GCC modularization project - Vacation November 12-14th

11 years, 2 months

[ACTIVITY] 3-7 November 2014

by Kugan

== Progress == * Zero/sign extension elimination with widening types (TCWG-546 - 9/10) - benchmarked Spec2k and the improvements are very small - Coremark fared worse. Looked into the cases and relaxed some of the constraints. - Subsequent passes are also not optimizing some of the expected cases - Re-factored and posted an RFC patch for comments at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg00756.html * Improve block memory operations by GCC (TCWG-142 - 1/10) - Looked at the test-cases and gcc dumps == Plan == * Continue with improve block memory operations by GCC. * Continue with Zero/sign extension pass based on feedback.

11 years, 2 months

[ACTIVITY] 3-7 November 2014

by Christophe Lyon

== Progress == * GCC 4.8 and 4.9 releases (2/10) - committed both branch merges after review+checked the validation results - 4.8 needs another branch merge, to get the last errata-related backport * GCC trunk/4.9 cross-validation (1/10) - committed a couple of patches to clean the testsuite - observed a couple of regressions, no time to investigate/report * AArch64 sanitizer - got agreement in principle for a new patch, which would test the kernel headers version. * Neon intrinsics tests update (1/10) - the 2 PR I created last week are probably duplicate. - ARM posted patches to fix problems in the same area, but don't fix these PRs * cbuild2 - no progress * Misc (6/10) - calls, meetings, support == Next == - Tuesday 11th public holiday * AArch64 sanitizer * Neon intrinsics update * GCC linaro 4.8/4.9 releases * cbuild2: - analyze previous results - look at backport-test and tcwgweb scripts+logs

11 years, 2 months

[ACTIVITY] Week 45

by Renato Golin

== Progress == * Automation Framework (CARD-1378 4/8) - Moving TCWG machines to the new office - Setting up new rack, stacking boards, etc. - Setting up Junos * Buildbots (TCWG-76 2/8) - Moving buildbots to the new office - Checking libcxxabi failure, marking as XFAIL - All bots green * Background (2/8) - Code review, meetings, discussions, etc. * 1 day ill == Plan == * Continue lab migration

11 years, 2 months

GDB Build Regression

by Christopher Covington

Hi, When updating: >From git://git.linaro.org/toolchain/binutils-gdb e0f5246..336649d master -> linaro/master I now get the following build error: gdb/binutils/readelf.c: In function ‘process_mips_specific’: gdb/binutils/readelf.c:13522:3: error: format ‘%lu’ expects argument of type ‘long unsigned int’, but argument 2 has type ‘size_t’ [-Werror=format=] printf (_("<symbol index %lu exceeds number of dynamic symbols>"), i); ^ Thanks, Cov -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

11 years, 3 months

[RFC] Linaro release version number macros

by Yvan Roux

Hi, after the recent lkml thread on blacklisting some GCC versions (see below) and the issue in identifying accurately our releases, I propose to add some Linaro specific macros in our branches (i.e this patch will not go upstream) to be able to check the Linaro version at preprocessor time. It will not solve the kernel issue with 4.8.N but hopefully help if such issues happen again the the futur. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/119412 What GCC has for the moment is 3 macros __GNUC__, __GNUC_MINOR__ and __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ that are filled by parsing version number contained in BASE-VER file, for instance on our 4.9 branch: __GNUC__ = 4 __GNUC_MINOR__ = 9 __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ = 2 In our branches, the Linaro version number is in the LINARO-VERSION file and has this format: At release point : 4.9-2014.10 Head of our branch: 4.9-2014.10-1~dev I want your (the team and users) point of view on the macros we need to create from it. Here is the options I see: A - Be fully Linaro consistent: __LINARO_MAJOR__ = 4 __LINARO_MINOR__ = 9 __LINARO_YEAR__ = 2014 __LINARO_MONTH__ = 10 __LINARO_SPIN__ = 0 or N __LINARO_STATE = 0 for release or 1 for dev B - Only give information that are not in the __GNUC* macros: __LINARO_YEAR__ = 2014 __LINARO_MONTH__ = 10 __LINARO_SPIN__ = 0 or N __LINARO_STATE = 0 for release or 1 for dev C - Be more concise: __LINARO_VERSION__ = 201410 __LINARO_SPIN__ = 0 or N __LINARO_STATE = 0 for release or 1 for dev D - Even more: __LINARO_VERSION__ = 201410N (with N the spin number) __LINARO_STATE = 0 for release or 1 for dev E - Hardcore conciseness: __LINARO__ = 201410NM (N = SPIN M = state) F - One of the previous ones without STATE information. G - One of the previous ones without SPIN information. Do you think it is something we need ? Do we already have that kind of macros in some products (binutils, gdb, glibc, ...) ? What option do you prefer ? My own feeling is that C+F is sufficient as STATE information is useless for releases and I don't think dev builds checking have to be used in another project. But SPIN information can be useful has we're doing respin because an outstanding issue/improvement has to be fixed/added to the current release, thus it is the kind of thing you want to check if the version of the compiler you are using contains. Thanks, Yvan

11 years, 3 months

Will this ARM64 erratum patch be backported to this month's Linaro GCC 4.9 release?

by Panshilin (Peter)

Dear all concerned: ARM has reported it's 53's bug:AArch64 multiply-accumulate instruction might produce incorrect result and developed the patch descriped below. will the patch be backported to Linaro 4.9 this month's release. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2014-10/msg00335.html thanks Peter

11 years, 3 months

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-toolchain