[ACTIVITY] 15-19 June 2015
* 1 day off (2/10) == Progress == * Neon intrinsics tests - committed last batch of tests - need to think about tests for vget_lane which are still missing, but not high priority * linaro-gcc-5.1-2015.06 snapshot (4/10) - committed branch merge with upstream gcc-5-branch - prepared snapshot & updated release scripts * Upstream maintenance (1/10) - backported a fix from Michael to 4.8 and 4.9 branches - backported fix for PR62308 to 4.9 branch - most of the time spent on bootstrapping on aarch64 HW - started looking at some recent new tests having trouble dealing with some multilib variants * Misc (3/10) - meetings, conf-calls, emails, ... == Next == * linaro-gcc-5.1-2015.06 snapshot - build release notes - create a proper tag * backports, release, validation: - update doc according to our new process * validation: - take unstable tests into account * upstream maintenance: - check recent regressions ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
Re: new gas feature: section name substitution sequence
> On Jun 18, 2015, at 6:41 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: > >> >> >> On 18-06-2015 11:26, Nicolas Pitre wrote: >>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: >>> On 18-06-2015 05:44, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: >> On Jun 17, 2015, at 3:15 AM, Nicolas Pitre >> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 4 Jun 2015, Jim Wilson wrote: >> >>> The normal toolchain process is that patches get added to our releases >>> only if they are already upstream. Our releases are FSF releases plus >>> patches backported from mainline, with no local changes except when >>> absolutely unavoidable. >> >> It is commit 451133cefa upstream. >> >> Please consider merging for the next toolchain release. I don't expect >> major conflicts if any. > > Hi Adhemerval, > > FAOD, are you planning to merge this feature into linaro's 2.25 or 2.24 > branch? > > My [very light] preference is to merge it to 2.25, but not 2.24. > > Thanks, > Do we need it to 2.24? Is this patch preventing current kernel builds for older binutils releases? >>> >>> Current kernels are fine without it. My work on kernel tinification >>> requires it though. Depending on when this work will be ready for wider >>> consumption, it would be nice if our binutils already carried the >>> necessary support. >>> >>> I don't know what the 2.24 vs 2.25 release timeline is, but if 2.25 is >>> released, say, before next Connect then it should be good enough. >>> >>> >> >> Binutils 2.24 was officially released 2013/12 and Binutils 2.25 at 2014/12. >> Current distros uses versions from 2.23 (RHEL7/CentOS7), 2.24 (Ubuntu 14), >> or 2.25 (Debian Jessie) and I think next Linaro toolchain will use 2.25. >> I would prefer to focus on 2.25, since 2.24 is reaching two years old, >> however >> since this modification seems to be very constrained, I do not see much work >> being required to backport to 2.24. > > Well... All I really care about is for this patch to be available in > next Linaro toolchain release, or next month's. The actual version > number is immaterial to me. Let's stick with 2.25 then. It should be released within 1-2 month timeframe. -- Maxim Kuvyrkov www.linaro.org ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
Re: new gas feature: section name substitution sequence
On 19-06-2015 12:00, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: >> On Jun 18, 2015, at 6:41 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: >> >> On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 18-06-2015 11:26, Nicolas Pitre wrote: On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: > > > On 18-06-2015 05:44, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: >>> On Jun 17, 2015, at 3:15 AM, Nicolas Pitre >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, 4 Jun 2015, Jim Wilson wrote: >>> The normal toolchain process is that patches get added to our releases only if they are already upstream. Our releases are FSF releases plus patches backported from mainline, with no local changes except when absolutely unavoidable. >>> >>> It is commit 451133cefa upstream. >>> >>> Please consider merging for the next toolchain release. I don't expect >>> major conflicts if any. >> >> Hi Adhemerval, >> >> FAOD, are you planning to merge this feature into linaro's 2.25 or 2.24 >> branch? >> >> My [very light] preference is to merge it to 2.25, but not 2.24. >> >> Thanks, >> > > Do we need it to 2.24? Is this patch preventing current kernel builds for > older > binutils releases? Current kernels are fine without it. My work on kernel tinification requires it though. Depending on when this work will be ready for wider consumption, it would be nice if our binutils already carried the necessary support. I don't know what the 2.24 vs 2.25 release timeline is, but if 2.25 is released, say, before next Connect then it should be good enough. >>> >>> Binutils 2.24 was officially released 2013/12 and Binutils 2.25 at 2014/12. >>> Current distros uses versions from 2.23 (RHEL7/CentOS7), 2.24 (Ubuntu 14), >>> or 2.25 (Debian Jessie) and I think next Linaro toolchain will use 2.25. >>> I would prefer to focus on 2.25, since 2.24 is reaching two years old, >>> however >>> since this modification seems to be very constrained, I do not see much work >>> being required to backport to 2.24. >> >> Well... All I really care about is for this patch to be available in >> next Linaro toolchain release, or next month's. The actual version >> number is immaterial to me. > > Let's stick with 2.25 then. It should be released within 1-2 month timeframe. > The patch is self-contained and trigger no regression in my testing. I updated both linaro 2.24 and 2.25 tree. > -- > Maxim Kuvyrkov > www.linaro.org > ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
[ACTIVITY] 15 - 19 June 2015
# Progress # * Linaro GDB [7/10] ** TCWG-805, aarch64 native debugging multi-arch support. Aarch64 GDB works well debugging Aarch32 programs, except on handling fork/vfork and watchpoint. Test harness uses ldd which doesn't handle aarch32 too. Report a kernel issue that it doesn't get TLS base right through ptrace in compat mode. Got a patch to fix it. * FSF GDB [3/10] ** Push in a fix to unbreak arm native gdb build. ** Post a patch to fix a bug on using PTRACE_GETREGSET on arm-linux. ** GDB 7.10 release. Branch isn't created. Test results of arm and aarch64 look good. # Plan # * TCWG-805, start to push some preparatory patches upstream. * Off on Thu. -- Yao ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
[ACTIVITY]
== Progress == * Maintenance (CARD-1833 1/10) - Looking at AArch64 ADD->SUB a bit more * Buildbots (CARD-1823 6/10) - Moving LNT bot to CMake - Setting up LLD and LLDB buildbots - Investigating LNT instability / Perf buildbot * Background (3/10) - Code review, meetings, discussions, etc. - Reviewing more stride vectorizer patches (back-end) == Plan == * Try to get some development going back again... ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
[ACTIVITY] 15-19 June
== Progress == Sprint recovery [2/10] (TCWG-775) NEON intrinsics error messages [7/10] . familiarisation with differences between ARM and AArch64 NEON/SIMD backends . started porting error reporting changes to ARM NEON backend . pinged patch for AArch64 work Misc [1/10] == Plans == continue NEON error messages vectorization work discussions ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
