linaro-toolchain

linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org

5 participants
5712 discussions

Prebuilt Linaro 2014.04 arm-linux-gnueabihf: cannot find /lib/ld-linux-armhf.so.3

by Denys Dmytriyenko

Hi, I've been having this issue with latest binary Linaro 2014.04 toolchain from http://releases.linaro.org/14.04/components/toolchain/binaries/gcc-linaro-a… It comes with own sysroot, but linker fails to locate /lib/ld-linux-armhf.so.3 $ make arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc -I/tmp/include/libnl3/ -DCONFIG_LIBNL32 -c -o nvs.o nvs.c arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc -I/tmp/include/libnl3/ -DCONFIG_LIBNL32 -c -o misc_cmds.o misc_cmds.c arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc -I/tmp/include/libnl3/ -DCONFIG_LIBNL32 -c -o calibrator.o calibrator.c arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc -I/tmp/include/libnl3/ -DCONFIG_LIBNL32 -c -o plt.o plt.c arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc -I/tmp/include/libnl3/ -DCONFIG_LIBNL32 -c -o wl18xx_plt.o wl18xx_plt.c arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc -I/tmp/include/libnl3/ -DCONFIG_LIBNL32 -c -o ini.o ini.c arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc -L/tmp/lib/ nvs.o misc_cmds.o calibrator.o plt.o wl18xx_plt.o ini.o -lm -lnl-3 -lnl-genl-3 -o calibrator /opt/linaro-2014.04/bin/../lib/gcc/arm-linux-gnueabihf/4.8.3/../../../../arm-linux-gnueabihf/bin/ld: cannot find /lib/ld-linux-armhf.so.3 collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status Makefile:26: recipe for target 'all' failed make: *** [all] Error 1 And when I pass my own sysroot, it works fine. Is it supposed to work as a standalone toolchain with its own bundled sysroot? Thanks. -- Denys

11 years, 11 months

x86_64 libsanitizer test case bug

by Rob Savoye

I've been digging through test logs, and for gcc 4.9.1 native x86_64 tests, all the libsanitizer test cases fail to link due to unresolved symbols from libpthread and libdl. Does anybody know more about this bug, or care to fix it ? :-) It still exists in gcc trunk. - rob -

11 years, 11 months

[Weekly] 19-23 May 2014

by Michael Collison

== This week == - Completed GCC Launchpad bug dispositions [CARD-300][2/10] - Backported PR61202 - gcc generated invalid sqdmulh instruction [TCWG-485](2/10) - Triaged and investigated Launchpad bug 1295738- Unable to find a register to spill in class 'LO_REGS' [Card 300](3/10) - Triaged and investigated Launchpad bug 1248752 - ARM assembly instruction compile error [Card-300](3/10) == Next week == - Resolve Launhpad bugs 1295738 and 1248752 - Triage and investigate other bugs as time warrants == Future == No Plans. == Planned holidays == No Plan

11 years, 11 months

[Activity] May 19-25

by Rob Savoye

== Progress == * Worked on building binary tarballs from Jenkins. (TCWG 383 - 4/10) * Continuing work on regression test analysis and reporting. (TCWG 448 - 3/10) - now copying the check.log from make check to toolchain so tcwgweb.sh can scan it for build errors in the test cases. - Got the delimiter for concurrent Jenkins builds changed, now glibc build problems are gone. - Track down and try to fix testsuite build issues. * Meetings and Misc. (3/10) - Worked on making remote testing go faster. Setting ControlPersist seems to help. - Much debugging of Jenkins related issues. == Plan == * Continuing work on validating test results and fixing testsuite build issues. (TCWG 448) * Probably more work on binary tarballs. (TCWG 383) * More tracking down and fixing Jenkins related issues. == Issues == * For some reason libgloss isn't getting built for *-elf via Jenkins/Cbuildv2.

11 years, 11 months

Parallel cross-testing of GCC

by Maxim Kuvyrkov

Hi, I have tried out a prototype of using binfmt_misc, and it does not appear to be a worthwhile solution at this point. Bottom line: with a nice fast multi-core x86 server and a pool of ARM boards we can test GCC in ~20min. Testing setup: - Core i3 2-core host - Chromebook 2-core target, SSD disk - WiFi network - GCC mainline built from sources with same flags both natively and cross: C, C++, Fortran. General observations about testing ARM toolchains: - When testing natively target is busy 100%: around 50% of time is spent compiling testcases, 40-45% in dejagnu/expect, 5-10% on actual test execution. Target is the bottleneck. -- 21633.22user 4400.13system 4:13:11elapsed - With testing cross using standard rsh_prog=ssh, rcp_prog=scp, target is busy 40% of the time: 30% on ssh, 10% on actual test execution. Host is the bottleneck. -- - When testing cross (using method below) target is busy only 15-20% of the time: 10% on ssh and 10% on actual test execution. Host is the bottleneck. -- 9490.16user 2882.54system 1:10:57elapsed I've got a prototype implementation of parallelized cross-testing of GCC that I'm happy with using rsh_prog and rcp_prog dejagnu wrappers: General observations on dejagnu cross-testing process: - All communication with the target is done by Dejagnu via rsh_prog and rcp_prog hooks. These are normally defined to ssh and scp respectively. - Dejagnu copies every testcase to /tmp/ on the target with scp. - Dejagnu executes every testcase via ssh off target's /tmp/. In total there is 1 scp and 3 ssh invocations per testcase. The idea of below scripts is to assume shared filesystem between host and a pool of target boards, and skip copying executables to target's local filesystem. Since there is no longer local state (local state == contents of /tmp) on the target boards, testcases can be executed on any of the boards in the pool. This happens transparently to dejagnu: dejagnu issues "rsh_prog chromebook-pool ./test" and then rsh_prog converts this to "ssh chromebook-XX ./test", where XX chosen at random. Script implementation notes: - For some unholy reason there is no way of correctly parse command line from dejagnu and give it to bash. The reason why myssh script ssh'es onto host itself is because that's the only way I've found to reliably execute the command. Hey! The command line was intended for ssh anyway! - Myssh script translates hostname of foobar-pool-01-03-08 into foobar01, foobar03 or foobar08 chosen at random. If there is no "-pool-" mentioned in hostname, then it is used verbatim. -- Maxim Kuvyrkov www.linaro.org

11 years, 11 months

[ACTIVITY] 19 - 23 May 2014

by Omair Javaid

== Progress == * GDB arm v8 record/replay -- Completed implementation of system call recording [TCWG-409] [4/10] -- Support for recording A64 Loads and stores [TCWG-409] [2/10] -- Bug Fixing to reduce failures in gdb.reverse testsuite [TCWG-484] [2/10] * Miscellaneous -- Day off on Friday [2/10] == Plan == * GDB arm v8 record/replay -- Submission of patches upstream. -- Bug fixing to reduce failures. -- Advance SIMD load/store instruction recording support.

11 years, 11 months

[ACTIVITY] Week 21

by Zhenqiang Chen

== Issue == * None. == Progress == * Investigate PR61220, 61225 and 61278, which are triggered by my previous commits. Patches are in review. (9/10) * Investigate codes generated by shrink-wrapping interrupt routes. It seams no dwarf info issue. * Misc update for Linaro crosstool-ng to make the build work in case someone wants to use it. - Down grade gdb to 7.6. - Disable multilib for 4.9. - Move local patches at binutils/linaro-2.24.0-2014.03 to binutils/linaro-2.24.0-2014.05. == Plans == * Push pending patches. == Planed leaves == * June. 2.

11 years, 11 months

ld can't deal with LTO bytecode in static libraries

by Bernhard Rosenkränzer

Hi, I've run into some compile errors after updating to 4.9 -- usually getting undefined references to symbols defined in helper static libraries. It turns out this is triggered by gcc -flto now creating slim object files by default (-ffat-lto-objects "fixes" it) - but I think it is actually an ld bug that should be fixed at some point. ld (regardless of whether I use -fuse-linker-plugin, -fuse-ld=gold or -fuse-ld=bfd) doesn't seem to see LTO bytecode in object files that are inside an ar wrapper. It deals with the library just fine if I use "ar x" to extract its object files and link to them individually as opposed to the .a file. I've attached a small test case to demonstrate ("make broken" shows the error, "make works" shows the workaround). Is there any reason why ld should behave the way it does, or is this a bug that needs fixing? ttyl bero

11 years, 11 months

[ACTIVITY] 19- 23 May 2014

by Venkataramanan Kumar

== Progress == * Reload - IRA bug fix (3/10) Not able to reproduce in trunk, r210538 masks the bug again :( Discussed with maxim on extending the macro ,Likely spilled class for thumb2. Decided that it will lead to performance regressions. Conservative fix is to allow the pattern for ARM target alone. Verfying the fix by on armhf schroot * Testing GCC Linaro compiler on Hardware (4/10) Completed GCC Linaro compiler 4.8 and 4.9 correctness tests on hardware. Completed running SPEC 2006 for -O3. Completed running SPEC2006 for -O3 -ftlo and -mcpu=cortex-a57. Triggered PGO runs on hardware. Looked at bootstrap failure with BOOT_CFLAGS="-mcpu=cortex-a57". Changed from system assembler to Linaro assembler solved it as system assembler is old. * Misc (3/10) - Completed installing ubuntu, set up chroot and migrate to toolchain 64 environment. (2/10) - 1-1 meetings (Ryan, Christophe and Maxim) (1/10) - AMD internal support work and meetings == Plan == * Continue bug fixing. * LTO bootstrap failure * Testing GCC Linaro compiler on hardware. * UK VISA processing.

11 years, 11 months

[ACTIVITY] 19 - 23 May 2014

by Kugan

== Progress == * Zero/sign extension elimination (TCWG-15) (9/10) - Initiated discussion and started working on alternate approach to handle this. - Gone through couple of prototype to understand approach. - Finshed first implrmentation; Needs cleanup and some failiures in regression needs fixing. * benchmarking (TCWG-468) (1/10) - Changes to Maxim's script is complete; Doing final testing before committing. * SAH1 performance (TCWG-413) - Committed a clean-up patch upstream. - Posted spill_class patch. * FENV for C11 TCWG-447 - Committed AArch64 part. == Plan == * Benchmarking. * Upstream zero/sign extension elimination activities. * sha1 performance.

11 years, 11 months

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-toolchain