Hi Andrew,
On 27 June 2016 at 19:32, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
>>No gain expected in implementing an Ifunc'ed version of the library.
>
> How did you prove that? What hardware did you run this on to prove it?
> Also have you thought at least doing an ifunc version for 128bit atomics?
up to
== Progress ==
o Extended Validation (1/10)
- Benchmarking job babysitting.
o Upstream GCC (4/10)
- ARMv8.1 libatomic: Analysis completed.
No gain expected in implementing an Ifunc'ed version of the library.
- Working on __sync buitlins potential fix.
o Misc (5/10)
* Vario
# Progress #
* TCWG-333, ISA bit treatment in ARM thumb mode.
Got some comments from Maciej (MIPS) and need to address them.
* TCWG-518, ARM range stepping patches. [2/10]
Combine the path of "proceed" and "resume" so that we only change one
place instead of two to support range stepping.
Hi,
2016-06-27 5:33 GMT+03:00 Jeffrey Walton :
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I have a test script from help that repeatedly builds and runs a
> library under different configurations. The script includes multiple
> Asan tests.
>
> The Asan tests are producing some findings under ARM32 as shown below.
> Othe
