On 10 November 2012 05:11, "Frank Müller" <franky1976(a)gmx.net> wrote:
> Michael Hope <michael.hope(a)linaro.org>:
>> My suspicion is that we/crosstool-NG enable extra features like
>> Graphite or GCC is built with a different level of checking. If you
>
> I suspected Graphite as well and removed it in my own builds without noticable difference.
>
>> have the time, could you check the flags passed to GCCs configure?
>> You can do this on Ubuntu using:
>>
>> apt-get build-dep gcc
>> apt-get source gcc
>> dpkg-buildpackage -uc -us -b
>>
>> and compare the configure line with the one in crosstool-NG's build.log.
>
> Isn't this the same as gcc -v? I've posted the lines at http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/linaro-toolchain/2012-October/002913.html
Good point. There's nothing obvious in the list. Ubuntu explicitly
adds --enable-checking=release but it's the default for release
branches like ours.
I can reproduce the slowdown in a smaller testcase. Compiling pcre
with -O3 -mfpu=neon -march=armv7-a -mtune=cortex-a8 takes 18.8 s for
the Ubuntu Precise 4.6 compiler, 17.8 s for the Ubuntu Quantal 4.7
compiler, and 41.2 s for the Linaro 4.7 2012.10 build. I've logged
LP: #1077739 to track. I'll spin a --enable-checking=release build
just to check.
> The above lines do not work for me, the last line misses a changelog file:
>
> # dpkg-buildpackage -uc -us -b
> tail: cannot open `debian/changelog' for reading: No such file or directory
> dpkg-buildpackage: error: tail of debian/changelog gave error exit status 1
Yip, you need to change to the just-extracted source directory first.
-- Michael
On 14 November 2012 00:48, 남관우 <kw46.nam(a)samsung.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> First, our CFLAGS is here.
>
>
>
> -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -Wformat -Wformat-security -Wl,--as-needed
> -fmessage-length=0 -march=armv7-a -mtune=cortex-a8 -mfpu=vfpv3-d16 -mfloat-abi=hard -mthumb -Wa,-mimplicit-it=thumb
> -mapcs -mno-sched-prolog -mabi=aapcs-linux -Uarm -fno-common -fpic
>
>
>
> It was occurred with the message. (/usr/lib/libnfc-common-lib.so.1: unexpected reloc type 0x03)
>
>
>
> Second,
>
> -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -Wformat -Wformat-security -Wl,--as-needed
> -fmessage-length=0 -march=armv7-a -mtune=cortex-a8 -mfpu=vfpv3-d16 -mfloat-abi=hard -mthumb -Wa,-mimplicit-it=thumb
> -mapcs -mno-sched-prolog -fno-common -fpic
>
>
>
> It was occurred too. (/usr/lib/libnfc-common-lib.so.1: unexpected reloc type 0x03)
Hi there. I don't know the cause but I'm suspicious of a few things.
Could you try the following builds?
The most likely:
* Without -mapcs
* Without -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4
Less likely:
* Without -fno-common
* With -fPIC instead of -fpic (should make no difference on ARM)
Could you also send through the linker command line? It would be
great to get a full log up on pastebin or similar.
-- Michael
Hi Michael,
Recently I tested the linaro toolchain gcc-4.6 version and try to
build our codes.
it's okay to compile the codes, but when launching the binary it
occures following messages.
/usr/lib/libnfc-common-lib.so.1: unexpected reloc type 0x03
I tested it both "hard float" and "soft float". the result is same.
do you have any clues?
Test environment:
toolchain: gcc-4.6.4 (2012.10 version) soft float option.
Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
hi,
I use beaglebone ,and the CPU is AM3359 from TI
can I use the linaro toolchain to the u-Boot linux kernel and android files?if I can ,which tool chain you suggest you use.
other question, your android realese file also can use my CPU(AM3359),Can I build image and download to my SD and run it?
thanks for your reply.
zhangzhangwei
2012-11-09
== Progress ==
* Watched some Connect sessions (ARMv8, GCC performance)
* AArch64 GDB support testing and backport investigation:
- Activities blocked until patches with the pthread interface update
are ready.
* Boehm GC AArch64 support:
- Read documentation on the garbage collector and ARMv8.
- Asked for advices to the maintainers.
- Started to port the libatomic_ops.
== Next ==
* Continue on the Boehm GC AArch64 support.
* Attended LinuxCon Europe / ELC-Europe / QEMU Summit / KVM Forum
(an overlapping set of conferences across a week in Barcelona)
LCE/ELC: brief summary of interesting sessions (I've only listed
ones which seem most relevant to ARM just to keep the length of this
report down):
* "Devicetree and its stumbling blocks" -- a view from a kernel
developer perspective of some of the issues with doing platform
data to dt conversions: (a) dt is supposedly OS independent and
an external ABI, implying more need for cleanliness and long term
supportable interfaces. (b) conversions imply a need to generalise
bindings to be usable across many devices (c) what do we do about
configuration / policy choices?
My take is that the kernel folks are tying themselves in knots
to try to preserve the (somewhat fictional in practice) idea that
any kernel will work with any older device tree blob and they'd
find it easier if they declared an amnesty for breaking changes
before some deadline date...
* Developing and testing industrial hardware with QEMU
Rather than developing/testing sw against expensive/limited
availability hw, use a model -- easier automation, ability to
simulate error conditions, etc. If your hardware is basically
a PCI card in an x86 box QEMU's fairly easy to use for this.
* UEFI Secure Boot
A summary of the current status of UEFI Secure Boot: it's mandatory
for Win8 hardware; Linux implication is that we need to be able to
maintain simple "out of box boot off distro CD"; optionally, if we
have end-to-end signed binaries we have access to environments which
will end up mandating it (read: government). Fortunately people
have come together to tackle this and it looks like we're in good shape.
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/18945.html is a good summary.
* Kernel report by Jonathon Corbet
ARM featured fairly prominently in this stats-driven roundup:
64-bit ARM support was first listed bullet point for 3.7 features
Pointed out that Linaro and other embedded-ARM kernel contributions
are notably up, ARM mess has been cleaned up.
KVM Forum:
* Concurrency in QEMU
Plans for splitting QEMU's "big lock" into finer grained mutexes;
should improve I/O scalability for KVM guests and realtime guest
latency. However some tricky locking design issues to be solved.
I am as usual sticking my oar in occasionally to remind people that
the world is not solely x86-and-PCI...
* qtest
A summary of QEMU's new qtest framework, how it works and how to
write tests. We're going to start insisting on test cases for new
patches, so I need to write some basic tests for a few ARM devices
so I know how it works :-)
* ARM Virtualization for the Masses
Christoffer Dall's talk introducing the ARM virt. extensions and KVM
work. Well received, various questions afterwards (some elements of
"why doesn't this work the way the x86 stuff does", also lots of
"does this work on the Samsung/Google Chromebook" :-))
QEMU Summit:
* This was an invite-only afternoon with perhaps 20 or so of the
main QEMU contributors; broadly focused on "process" issues like
release management, patch flow and security bug handling. Productive
session; minutes should be available on the QEMU mailing list shortly.
This is likely to be repeated next year.
Informal discussions (IME the most important and worthwhile part):
* virtio related : ran through current status of virtio-mmio patches
with Anthony Liguori and Alex Graf, confirmed what changes we need
to make and what the next steps with this should be. Some enthusiasm
for getting this patchset in in the early part of the QEMU 1.4
release if we can. I'm really happy that we've unblocked this bit of
work which had stalled slightly trying to figure out the right approach.
Long term we will probably end up using virtio-pci on ARM but this
is really dependent on hardware with good PCI support appearing.
* SystemC : the upstream community is not currently interested in
SystemC support, but there is some work on the QEMU core which would
be a useful cleanup for QEMU itself and also useful for the SystemC
folk. I'm hopeful that this might help to bring people working with
QEMU in SystemC closer to the "QEMU upstream" community and mailing
list, but it will be a gradual process both socially and technically
if it does happen.
* an informal enquiry about whether system emulation of virt. mode
in ARM was planned or how much work it would be
* in-kernel-irqchip: common ABI cross architecture
the current ABI is a bit x86-specific, useful discussion about
what POWER/S390/ARM would need. There will probably be some more
ioctls coming along but the good news is that what the KVM ARM
patches have currently fits into the proposals with only a very
trivial tweak; we can add support for the new ioctls later if
they are useful for us.
-- PMM
== Blueprints ==
Initial Current Actual
initial-aarch64-backport 31 Oct 2012 30 Nov 2012
aarch64-baremetal-testing 31 Oct 2012 30 Nov 2012
fix-gcc-multiarch-testing 31 Dec 2012 31 Dec 2012
backport-fma-intrinsic 31 Dec 2012 31 Dec 2012
fused-multiply-add-support 31 Dec 2012 31 Dec 2012
gcc-investigate-lra-for-arm 31 Dec 2012 31 Dec 2012
== Progress ==
* Returned from Connect and followed up.
* Updated performance blueprints for next iteration
* Backporting Doko's triplet patches to 4.7
* Patches ready except for problems building Ada
* HOT/COLD partitioning
* Rebuilt with TBB/TBH disabled always
* Started investigated LRA for ARM
== Next Week ==
* Post triplet backport patches upstream
* Run HOT/COLD partitioning benchmarks
* On ARM to see if TBB/TBH is making the difference previously seen
* On x86_64 to see what the actual benefit we could get
* initial-aarch64-backport & aarch64-baremetal-testing
* Finish documentation
* gcc-investigate-lra-for-arm
* Benchmark on x86_64 to see what the benfit could be.
* fix-gcc-multiarch-testing
* Come up with strawman proposal for updating testsuite to handle
testing with varying command-line options.
== Future ==
* backport-fma-intrinsic & fused-multiply-add-support
* Backport patches once fix-gcc-multiarch-testing has been done.
--
Matthew Gretton-Dann
Linaro Toolchain Working Group
matthew.gretton-dann(a)linaro.org