linaro-toolchain

linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org

3 participants
5603 discussions

Launchpad: Validate your team's contact email address

by Launchpad Email Validator

Hello The Launchpad user named 'Michael Hope (michaelh1)' requested the registration of 'linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org' as the contact email address of team 'Linaro Toolchain Developers'. This request can only be made by a team owner/administrator, so if this change request was unexpected or was not requested by one of the team's administrators, please contact system-error(a)launchpad.net. If you want to make this email address the contact email of 'Linaro Toolchain Developers', please click on the link below and follow the instructions. https://launchpad.net/token/6sQQKQ6kx3XP9MlWMwmX Thanks, The Launchpad Team

14 years, 2 months

New porter boxes

by Michael Hope

Hi there. The new porter boxes are now available for use. See: https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Hardware for details. These are PandaBoards with 768 MB of memory, a USB HDD, and a good internet connection. They can be used for day to day jobs like building programs, triaging bugs, and running benchmarks. Use dchroot natty to switch into the chroot. Use sudo apt-get install yyy to install packages. The build dependences for GCC, GDB, and binutils should already be installed. -- Michael

14 years, 2 months

[ACTIVITY] April 3-7

by Ira Rosen

Hi, * continued bringing patches upstream - changing default vector size to 128 - resubmitted with changes according to comments, awaiting review - if-conversion improvement - committed * PR 48252 - bug in vzip/vuzp/vtrn implementation - patch submitted * opened PR 48454 - a test failure with -mvectorize-with-neon-quad Next week - vacation. April 18-27 - Passover Holiday, I'll only work half days on April 18 and April 24. And possibly half days on April 20 and 21. Ira

14 years, 2 months

Tegra2 errata bug

by David Gilbert

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/eglibc/+bug/739374 is the bug relating to the Tegra errata mentioned today. Dave

14 years, 2 months

[ACTIVITY] Apr 04 - Apr 06

by Ulrich Weigand

== GDB == * Ongoing work to fix single-stepping over signal handlers (bug #615978). * Posted patch to support NEON registers in core files (bug #615972). * Failure to disable address space randomization (bug #616001) is shown to be a kernel problem; created stand-alone test case and opened bug against kernel team. == Schedule == * On vacation 04/07 - 04/15. Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Best Regards Ulrich Weigand -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand | Phone: +49-7031/16-3727 STSM, GNU compiler and toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell/B.E. IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Martin Jetter | Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen | Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294

14 years, 2 months

Re: Linaro 4.5.2 v. CodeSourcery 4.5.1

by Andrew Stubbs

On 25/03/11 21:48, Diane Holt wrote: > I hope you don't mind me sending you mail, but I'm a bit stuck...I've > been told I need the Linaro 4.5.2 toolchain because it has some "neon > optimizations" that the CS 4.5.1 doesn't have. In general, you'd be better addressing these questions on the Linaro Toolchain mailing list: linaro-toolchain(a)lists.linaro.org (I've copied it in). Not least because I'm on vacation for the next week. :) > Unfortunately, the Linaro > 4.5.2 that's available for download (already built) won't work in my > Scratchbox environment, since it was compiled against a glibc that's too > new. The CS 4.5.1 works fine -- but I'm not allowed to use it, because > of the neon stuff. The CS and Linaro compilers are really very similar, but CodeSourcery has not made a release since the autumn, so Linaro will have some extra features. > Do you know whether CS actually does have (or will have) the same neon > optimizations Linaro has? It depends which optimizations you are referring to? The existing CS release had the latest improvements at the time it was released, and I believe that the upcoming release will probably be very similar to Linaro (at least, with respect to ARMv7 - there'll be many differences for other architecture variants), but I'm not promising that. Sorry if that's a bit vague, but I the contents of the next CS release is still not finalised. > If it doesn't (and won't), then I'm going to have to build the Linaro > one from source. Unfortunately, I've not been able to find any detailed > information on how to go about doing that. Do you know if that's > documented anywhere? Are you talking about building native compiler, or a cross-compiler? The former is very simple (provided you have all the dependencies), while the latter is more involved. Here's the recipe to build a native compiler: tar xf gcc-linaro.....tar.bz2 mkdir objdir cd objdir ../gcc-linaro....../configure --prefix=<your-install-path> <opts> make bootstrap make install You can copy the configure <opts> from another compiler using 'gcc -v' and './configure --help' in the source tree should tell you what they mean. If you want to build a cross compiler, I suggest you look at crosstool or crosstool-ng, or OpenEmbedded. Building cross-toolchains is non-trivial. Hope that helps. Andrew

14 years, 3 months

CoreMark over releases

by Michael Hope

Here's some pretty pictures of the relative CoreMark performance on a Cortex-A9. Note that in accordance with the CoreMark rules, all results are estimates. Linaro GCC 4.5 and mainline GCC vs 4.5.2: http://people.linaro.org/~michaelh/incoming/all-o3-vs-gcc-4.5.2.png Linaro GCC 4.5 releases vs our first: http://people.linaro.org/~michaelh/incoming/releases-o3-vs-gcc-linaro-4.5-2… Linaro GCC 4.5 builds between 2010.08 and 2010.10: http://people.linaro.org/~michaelh/incoming/releases-o3-vs-gcc-linaro-4.5-2… The 2.5 % drop in performance for 2010.09 is probably due to r99379. The further 2 % drop in 2010.10 is due to re-syncing with mainline 4.5.2. Performance has been moving solidly upwards but it has to start from the -4.5 % from these two updates. Chung Lin's unsigned extension changes should be interesting... -- Michael

14 years, 3 months

Linaro toolchain integration with ChromiumOS build

by PANKAJ KUMAR DUBEY

14 years, 3 months

[ACTIVITY] Weekly status

by Richard Sandiford

== Last week == * Finished the patch that I was working on last week to use memory operands rather than register operands in neon.md. Submitted upstream: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg01996.html Among other things, this allows the intrinsics to use post-modified addresses. * Submitted patches to make the number of rtl generator arguments (as opposed to insn operands) available to the expand-time code: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg02227.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg02228.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg02229.html This is part of the tree-rtl expansion "cleanups" that I've been doing in preparation for the vectoriser work. * More discussion about the handling of type modes vs. per-function target switching. I've think we've agreed what the right approach is, although it's probably outside the scope of this project. The discussion was still useful because it meant I could submit & defend the next patch. * Submitted a patch to use non-BLK modes for arrays of vectors (like uint32x2x2_t & co. in arm_neon.h); http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg02192.html This avoids that stack spilling that was discussed during the week. Richard Guenther seemed happy with the patch in principle, but understandably wanted to see how the optabs stuff worked out first. Also, the testcase he asked me to try exposed another instance of: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46329 so that needs to be fixed first. * Started writing & testing a fix for that PR (46329). == This week == * Finish fix for PR46329. * More vld & vst stuff. Richard

14 years, 3 months

[ACTIVITY] Mar.28 -- Apr.03

by Chung-Lin Tang

== Last week == * PR48250 / CS Issue #9845 / Launchpad #723185. Unaligned DImode reload under NEON. Went back and forth with Richard Earnshaw on gcc-patches for most of the week. The issues should finally be clear, and I think it would be better to modify the significant parts of arm_legitimize_reload_address() to do the right thing rather than just fixing the bug. I have a new patch done over the weekend, though it still shows a few regressions after some testing. I hope this gets done by this week... * PR48325 / Launchpad #744754, another NEON ICE in postreload. This appears to be the IA/DB modes for VLDM/VSTM for NEON struct modes were not enabled. This ICE actually does not happen currently on upstream trunk, but sent patch anyways. Pending review. * Spent some time on Launchpad #736661 (C++ ICE in expr.c), and looked at upstream testsuite regressions of gcc.dg/pr17957.c and gcc.dg/torture/pr47975.c under -mfpu=neon (ICE on OImode const0_rtx assignment). * Call with Ramana on ARM optimization work. == This week == * Get PR48250/Launchpad #723185 nailed. * Other pending GCC issues. * TW Public Holiday, Mon. and Tue. (Apr.4-5)

14 years, 3 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

linaro-toolchain