Add powerpc64-grtev3-linux-gnu.xfail to mark expected failures for
powerpc64 toolchain. For google/gcc_4-7 branch.
Tested:
./buildit --build_type=symlinks --keep_work_dir --run_tests
gcc-4.7.x-grtev3-powerpc64
2012-12-10 Jing Yu
* contrib/testsuite-management/powerpc64-grtev3
Add new validator manifest xfail file for native powerpc64 toolchain.
Ok for google/gcc-4_7?
Tested:
./validate_failures.py
--manifest=powerpc64-grtev3-linux-gnu-native.xfail --
results="gcc/gcc.sum g++/g++.sum gfortran/gfortran.sum"
2013-06-05
* powerpc64-grtev3-linux-gnu-native.xf
Hi,
This patch changes top level configure to add aarch64 to list of
targets that support gold. Have tested binutils with this patch on
x86_64 and aarch64 platforms.
OK for trunk?
2014-09-18 Jing Yu
* configure.ac: Add aarch64 to list of targets that support gold.
* configure
Hi Config-maintainers,
Is this patch ok for trunk?
Thanks!
Jing
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Jing Yu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch changes top level configure to add aarch64 to list of
> targets that support gold. Have tested binutils with this patch on
> x86_64 and aarch64
binWsrE0LGKO9.bin
Description: Binary data
google/gcc-4_7?
If the same issue exists on upstream trunk, how does the patch sound to trunk?
Thanks,
Jing
2013-03-11 Jing Yu
* Makefile.in: (maybe-configure-target-libmudflap):
Add dependence on confi
I made a mistake in my previous patch. I did not notice that
Makefile.in was a generated file. Update the patch.
2013-03-12 Jing Yu
* Makefile.def (Target modules dependencies): Add new dependency.
* Makefile.in: Re-generate.
Index: Makefile.in
Got new regression failures when using gold to run gcc regression
tests. The failures are related to LIPO (b/8397853).
Since LIPO won't be available for Powerpc64 target until the end of
2013Q2, mark these tests expected failure.
OK for google/gcc-4_7?
Tested:
Extract testresults from nightly bui
Hi,
Current Makefile.in does not match Makefile.def. Regenerate it by
"autogen Makefile.def".
Tested the patched google/gcc-4_8 with crosstool-validate.py
--testers=crosstool.
OK for google/gcc-4_8?
Thanks,
Jing
Index: Makefile.in
Backport r183875 from trunk and gcc-4.7 to fix PR51811 ([C++0x] Incorrect
increment/decrement of atomic pointers).
Tested:
1) --testers=crosstool.
2) unit test in Google ref b/6702865
OK for google-4_6 branch?
Thanks,
Jing
2012-07-19 Jing Yu
Backport r183875 to fix wrong atomic
It is not a straightforward backport.
has changed a lot in gcc-4.7. is_lock_free() body is entirely
different between gcc-4.6 and r183875. In gcc-4.6, is_lock_free()
simply returns false or true. Notice that gcc-4.6 defines two
namesapce __atomic0, __atomic2 in separate files (atomic_0.h,
atomic_2
LGTM
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:24 AM, wrote:
> On 2012/05/01 22:51:22, jingyu wrote:
>>
>> 1) Please add an description entry to libgcc/ChangeLog.google-4_6
>
>
> Done.
>
>
>
>> 2) Your gcc/ChangeLog.google-4_6 change reverts someone else's change.
>
> Please
>>
>> update it and also update the
I would like to port this patch to google/gcc-4_6 and also
google/gcc-4_6_2-mobile.
>From reading the patch, it does not change config for non-Android target.
bootstrap,crosstool tests finished successfully on google/gcc-4_6.
Built ARM android toolchain successfully.
OK?
Thanks,
Jing
On Thu, M
-mobile.
OK?
2012-05-18 Jing Yu
Backport from trunk r187586:
2012-05-16 Igor Zamyatin
* configure.ac: Stack protector enabling for Android targets.
* configure: Regenerate.
Index: gcc/configure
This patch looks good for Android toolchain. But I am not a maintainer.
Can any x86 backend maintainer help to review the patch?
Thanks,
Jing
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Ping
>
> 13 марта 2012 г. 15:13 пользователь Ilya Enkovich
> написал:
>> Ping
>>
>> 27 февраля 20
This patch looks good for Android toolchain. But I am not a maintainer.
Can any x86 backend maintainer help to review the patch?
Thanks,
Jing
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Ping
>
> 13 марта 2012 г. 15:12 пользователь Ilya Enkovich
> написал:
>> Ping
>>
>> 27 февраля 20
Hi Ahmad,
This is a backport for two upstream patches into our 4.6-mobile branch.
These two patches have been backported to google-4.6 by Doug Kwan last week.
2011-12-05 Jing Yu
Backport r171347 and r181549 from trunk.
gcc/
2011-03-23 Julian Brown
Hi Ahmad,
This is a backport for two upstream patches into our 4.6-mobile branch.
These two patches have been backported to google-4.6 by Doug Kwan last week.
2011-12-05 Jing Yu
Backport r171347 and r181549 from trunk.
gcc/
2011-03-23 Julian Brown
nches.
2011-12-14 H.J. Lu
Jing Yu
* config/locale/generic/c_locale.h (__convert_from_v): Replace
NULL with 0.
* config/locale/generic/c_locale.cc (__convert_to_v): Likewise
* config/locale/generic/time_members.cc (_M_put): Likewise
Thanks,
Jing
On Wed, D
Committed to both google/gcc-4_6-google and google/gcc-4_6-mobile
(mobile release branch).
Diego,
I just realize we need this patch for google/gcc-main, since it is a
local patch. OK?
Thanks,
Jing
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 11-12-14 13:43 , Jing Yu wr
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Carrot Wei wrote:
> Hi Richard and Jakub
>
> Since 4.6 contains the same bug, I would like to back port it to 4.6
> branch. Could you approve it for 4.6?
>
> Jing and Doug
>
> Could you approve it for google/gcc-4_6-mobile branch?
>
OK for google/gcc-4_6-mobile an
arm-eabi toolchain needs GNU-stack note for security purpose.
Will Keep this patch in google branches.
OK for google/main?
I would like to port this patch to google/gcc-4_6, google/gcc-4_6-mobile,
google/gcc-4_6_2-moible.
2012-02-14 Jing Yu
Google ref 42402-p2
* config/arm
OK. Thanks for porting the patch.
I will commit the patch into google/gcc-4_6_2-mobile for you.
I would also like to commit it into google/gcc-4_6 branch if all tests
pass. This patch is almost the same as Google Ref 47894.
Thanks,
Jing
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 5:20 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>>
>
> google/gcc-4_6_2-mobile branch still has the same problem. Could
> please someone fix it?
>
> Thanks
> Ilya
>
>> Ollie
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Jing Yu wrote:
>>>
>>> OK. Thanks for porting the patch.
>>>
Hi H.J.,
I think the patch itself is not enough.
I compared "AC_DEFUN([gcc_AC_INITFINI_ARRAY]" part (in acinclude.m4)
of gcc trunk and google/gcc-4_6_2-mobile, and found how
enable_initfini_array is
configured is different.
The patch breaks some of our tests. enable_initfini_array should be
disab
ors/.dtors
with .init_array/.fini_array).
I also built Android toolchain and verified "gcc_cv_initfini_array=no".
r177933 is already in google/gcc-4_6_2-mobile and
google/gcc-4_6-mobile. I need to backport the rest to these two
branches.
ok?
2012-02-21 Jing Yu
Google Ref 47
So far, Android ARM toolchain, which builds Android platform for ARM
boards, does not enable RTTI and exceptions by default. There are
license concerns with the use of GNU libstdc++ and libsupc++.
Thanks,
Jing
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:5
I am OK with the patch, I am not a maintainer though.
Jing
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:11 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Android uses crtbegin_so.o and crtend_so.o to build shared library with
> -mshared. OK for trunk in stage 1?
>
>
> H.J.
> ---
> 2011-12-13 H.J. Lu
>
> * config/linux-an
My comment is(was) not on the format of the patch. Instead, I am
thinking whether Android toolchain customer, which is Android AOSP,
wants this patch.
I don't know the scenario behind this patch. I think the question
behind this patch is, if RTTI and exceptions are enabled by default,
who is suppo
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> My comment is(was) not on the format of the patch. Instead, I am
>> thinking whether Android toolchain customer, which is Android AOSP,
>> wants this patch.
>>
>> I don't know the scenario behind this patch. I think the question
>> behind t
Backport r184061 from gcc-4_6 branch to fix an invalid
constant simplification (PR52060).
bootstrap and crosstool tests pass.
OK for google/gcc-4_6 and google/gcc-4_6_2-mobile?
2012-03-01 Jing Yu
Backport r184061 from gcc-4_6-branch to fix PR52060.
2012-02-07 Jakub Jelinek
The patch will be auto-merged into google/gcc-4_6 in near future.
I will cherry-pick it into google/gcc-4_6_2-mobile.
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Jing Yu wrote:
> Backport r184061 from gcc-4_6 branch to fix an invalid
> constant simplification (PR52060).
>
> bootstrap and cro
I ported this patch into google/gcc-4_6_2-mobile.
Thanks,
Jing
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> Committed now, thanks.
>
> -Sri.
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>> ok.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Sriraman Tallam w
bout it.
>>
>> This patch has been tested on arm qemu without regression.
>>
>> thanks
>> Carrot
>>
>> 2011-05-24 Jing Yu
>>
>> * ChangeLog.google-main: New file.
>> * getpagesize.c(getpagesize): Disable it for bionic.
>>
ed in some cases.
Jing
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Doug Kwan (關振德) wrote:
> Jing
>
> Can't we just skip libiberty in top-level configure.ac? Look for the
> comment "Disable target libiberty for some systems."
>
> -Doug
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:1
nelf*|arm*-*-linux-androideabi)
noconfigdirs="$noconfigdirs target-libiberty"
;;
avr-*-*)
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:00 AM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2011, Jing Yu wrote:
>
>> I am wondering how to disable build of libiberty for target? I
>
&
omeone is working on it. Before that patch comes
out, can we add arm*-*-linux-androideabi to the list of targets where
target-libiberty is skipped?
Thanks,
Jing
2011-05-08 Jing Yu
* configure.ac: Skip target-libiberty for
arm*-*-linux-androideabi.
* configure:
Hi Sofiane,
I find your following patch has been approved by Richard in Oct last
year, but it is not trunk.
Is there any problem with it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg00266.html
If you don't mind, I can help to commit the patch.
Thanks,
Jing
don't have the bandwidth to work on the ideal patch. Thus I am
wondering if we can skip target-libiberty for androideabi target
before the ideal patch is out.
Thanks,
Jing
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Ye Joey wrote:
> On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Jing Yu wrote:
>>
>>
Since this patch has been properly approved, if there is no objection
in 24 hours, I will commit this patch to trunk.
Thanks,
Jing
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Jing Yu wrote:
> Hi Sofiane,
>
> I find your following patch has been approved by Richard in Oct last
> year, but it
ew is on going. I am not sure how long it would be.
I would suggest we first commit this tiny patch in google/main and
make our toolchain built. Then do further update if the trunk version is final.
Thanks,
Jing
2011-05-31 Jing Yu
* configure.ac: Skip target-libiberty for arm*-*-
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 12:49 -0700, Jing Yu wrote:
>> Since this patch has been properly approved, if there is no objection
>> in 24 hours, I will commit this patch to trunk.
>>
>
> Once a patch has b
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg00134.html
Backport r174549 to fix three testcases that are specific to ARM mode
and therefore should be skipped when compiling for thumb.
Thanks,
Jing
2011-06-01 Jing Yu
Backport r174549
2011-06-01 Sofiane Naci
Ping.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg02208.html
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Jing Yu wrote:
> Based on discussion on another thread
> (http://www.mail-archive.com/gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org/msg06627.html),
> what Joseph recommended was ripping out all support for
ARM maintainers,
Is it ok to skip building target-libiberty for arm*-*-linux-androideabi target?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg02208.html
Thanks,
Jing
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:26 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>> Ping.
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg02208.html
>>
>> >
causes segmentation
fault.
Thanks,
Jing
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> I'm committing this patch for Jing Yu on google/main.
>
> The patch handles NULL values returned from setlocale. Jing, could
> you please describe why this was needed? Is this a patc
46 matches
Mail list logo
