On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Some news from the qemu mailing list that I think might be
> of interest to gcc folks here:
>
> Christophe Lyon from ST has kindly released a large
> set of test cases of Neon intrinsics:
> http://gitorious.org/arm-neon-tests/arm-neon-tests
>
Hi there. I've had a think and done a write-up on the causes behind
the 2011.01 release failure and what should be changed. See:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Incidents/2011.01-X86_64
The changes involve being more explicit in the release process
document and changing the con
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Revital1 Eres wrote:
> Hello Michael,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> I have another question regarding the testing process -
> what is the set of languages that is acceptable to test with 'make check'
> on ARM machine?
I'm happy with C and C++. The continuous bui
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> could you please provide some comments about the state of "-Os"
> (optimising for size) in the gcc 4.5.x versions of Linaro's tool
> chain?
>
> It appears there are a number of issues with recent versions of GCC
> that get triggere
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:31 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> I assume we're moving the toolchain calls over to the
> new confcall numbers -- but just to check, are we doing
> so for this Wednesday's status call? The calendar
> entry still has the old numbers...
Let's keep this Wednesday's call on the
I assume we're moving the toolchain calls over to the
new confcall numbers -- but just to check, are we doing
so for this Wednesday's status call? The calendar
entry still has the old numbers...
-- PMM
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@
Some news from the qemu mailing list that I think might be
of interest to gcc folks here:
Christophe Lyon from ST has kindly released a large
set of test cases of Neon intrinsics:
http://gitorious.org/arm-neon-tests/arm-neon-tests
(the tests themselves are more aimed at testing qemu,
so they just
