Hi Bharath. Have a look under contrib/linaro/sysroot - there's a
script in there that you can fiddle with to pick a later distro.
-- Michael
On 16 October 2013 17:52, bhs wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> I see that linaro's build system is using pre-built sysroot as an input
> to build cross-toolchain f
On 17 August 2013 14:36, Renato Golin wrote:
> On 17 August 2013 08:36, Michael Hope wrote:
>>
>> user/real is 3.81 so it was nicely CPU bound. The Wandboard runs at
>> 1.0 GHz vs the U2 1.7 GHz and 142 / 1.7 = 83, which is very close to
>> your 80 minutes.
>
&
On 13 December 2012 22:22, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Hope [mailto:michael.h...@linaro.org]
>> Sent: 12 December 2012 22:54
>> To: Ramana Radhakrishnan
>> Cc: linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
>> Su
Hi Ramana. You have the following branches remaining on Launchpad:
* lp:~ramana/gcc-linaro/47-lower-subreg-experiments
* lp:~ramana/gcc-linaro/47-improve-neon-intrinsics
* lp:~ramana/gcc-linaro/47-nobble-promote-mode
* lp:~ramana/gcc-linaro/47-smin-umin-idiom
Which are obsolete, which should
On 11 December 2012 06:43, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
> This patch adds aarch64 implementations of memcpy, memset and strcmp
> to cortex strings.
Now that you've added multi-architecture support, I've added a native,
cross aarch32, and cross aarch64 build to our auto builders. An
example build comp
On 11 December 2012 06:43, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
> This patch adds aarch64 implementations of memcpy, memset and strcmp
> to cortex strings.
Applied as bzr89. I shifted the implementations to src/aarch64.
-- Michael
___
linaro-toolchain mailing lis
On 11 December 2012 06:41, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
> Following this mornings set of patches, this patch adds configury for
> aarch64 support.
Applied as bzr88. I dropped the extra parallel-tests.
-- Michael
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-to
On 11 December 2012 01:26, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
> This patch adds --std=gnu99 to CFLAGS for the tests. This is
> necessary because some of the test code use the following c99 idiom:
>
> for (int x=)
Doesn't the -std=gnu99 in AM_CFLAGS apply to tests as well?
-- Michael
_
On 11 December 2012 01:26, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
> Adding definitions for LDADD and CFLAGS when building strchr and memchr tests.
>
> /Marcus
Applied as bzr86.
-- Michael
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
http://lis
On 11 December 2012 01:26, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
> This patch adds support for --host=TRIPLE to configure which is
> convenient for cross building.
Applied as bzr84.
-- Michael
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
http
On 11 December 2012 01:26, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
> This patch is just a minor whitespace cleanup.
> /Marcus
Applied as bzr83. I updated scripts/add-license.sh to strip trailing
whitespace from any future files.
-- Michael
___
linaro-toolchain maili
The minutes of the main call held on 10 December 2012 can be found at:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2012-12-10
In summary the actions from the meeting are:
* ACTION: Yvan to post mail to linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org re:
4.6 armv5 sync failures
* ACTION: Matt re
On 9 December 2012 04:10, chenq wrote:
> Hi all，
>
> I am a rookie, and now I'm focusing on ARM virtualization.
>
> As we know,KVM (for Kernel-based Virtual Machine) is a full virtualization
> solution.
>
> KVM-Autotest is a set of virtualization tests for X86 platform, but it may
> not be suit
I've done a couple of tweaks to the scheduler. You now see pending
jobs by the class of machine they'll run on. Clicking a job takes you
to the detail, which includes a link to drop/cancel the job.
-- Michael
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-t
The minutes of the performance call held on 3 December 2012 can be found at:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2012-12-03
In summary the actions from the meeting are:
* ACTION: Yvan will do the trunk merge this week
* ACTION: Yvan to do the GCC release next week
* ACTIO
On 22 November 2012 20:53, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> On 21 November 2012 09:20, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
>> On 21 November 2012 03:26, Michael Hope wrote:
>>> On 20 November 2012 22:10, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I try ARM,
On 23 November 2012 02:43, Andrey Senkevich wrote:
> Hello mister Hope,
>
> this is already solved.
>
> There was -fpie option which cause that problem.
>
> Pardon, i didn't inform you in time.
Good to hear you have a solution,
-- Michael
___
linaro-t
On 15 November 2012 01:58, 남관우 wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> As your guide, i tried to build again.
>
>
>
> without : -mapcs -fno-common -fstack-protector --param==ssp=buffer-size=4
>
>
> and -fPIC instead of -fpic
>
>
>
> But it is failed with same the message. (/usr/lib/libnfc-common-lib.so.1:
> unexp
On 20 November 2012 22:10, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I try ARM, MIPS, PowerPC and X86 on povray benchmark. No one can
> shrink-wrap function Ray_In_Bound.
>
> Here is:
> bool Ray_In_Bound (RAY *Ray, OBJECT *Bounding_Object)
> {
> ...
> for (Bound = Bounding_Object; Bound != NULL; Bound =
On 14 November 2012 22:09, Mickey Iluz wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Thanks for looking into that issue. Upgrading to GCC 4.7 might be possible,
> for now I've decided to remove the -funroll-loops flag, and keep working with
> Freescale's GCC 4.6.2 build.
Sure. I also found that you could hide the
On 12 November 2012 22:19, Mickey Iluz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've encountered a case where gcc produces a broken program: a branch that
> should never be taken is taken, and wrong values are written to memory (and
> printed out).
> The code is fairly ordinary and small. It can be seen here:
> http:/
On 13 November 2012 22:58, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 12.11.2012 03:27, schrieb Michael Hope:
>> I think I've found the problem. We pass -U_FORTIFY and
>> -fno-stack-protector to make the binary more universal, and the way
>> that crosstool-NG passes these flags on
On 14 November 2012 00:48, 남관우 wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> First, our CFLAGS is here.
>
>
>
> -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector
> --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -Wformat -Wformat-security -Wl,--as-needed
> -fmessage-length=0 -march=armv7-a -mtune=cortex-a8 -mfpu=vfpv
On 12 November 2012 14:17, Mans Rullgard wrote:
> On 11 November 2012 22:18, Michael Hope wrote:
>> On 10 November 2012 05:11, "Frank Müller" wrote:
>>> Michael Hope :
>>>> My suspicion is that we/crosstool-NG enable extra features like
>>>>
On 10 November 2012 05:11, "Frank Müller" wrote:
> Michael Hope :
>> My suspicion is that we/crosstool-NG enable extra features like
>> Graphite or GCC is built with a different level of checking. If you
>
> I suspected Graphite as well and removed it in my
On 9 November 2012 22:22, zhangzhangwei wrote:
> hi,
> I use beaglebone ,and the CPU is AM3359 from TI
> can I use the linaro toolchain to the u-Boot linux kernel and android
> files?if I can ,which tool chain you suggest you use.
> other question, your android realese file also can use my CPU(AM3
On 8 November 2012 21:32, "Frank Müller" wrote:
> I now had some time to try out making my own compiler, and started off with a
> few different configurations with crosstool-ng 1.16.0. Interestingly the
> results were as slow (if not slightly slower with almost 12 minutes) in
> compilation as L
This is the first of a few Connect follow up emails. KVM and
Cortex-A15 tuning are to come.
Matt and I have entered the initial aarch64 blueprints. These are
part of the bootstrap that clear the way for us and the community to
port packages on top.
The high priority ones are:
* Add support for
On 30 October 2012 22:11, Mans Rullgard wrote:
> On 29 October 2012 16:28, "Frank Müller" wrote:
>> Mans Rullgard wrote:
>>> On 28 October 2012 18:08, "Frank Müller" wrote:
>>> > For easier maintenance, we are now switching to Linaro. The image is set
>>> up and I can compile, however I notice
; >> result. (See arch/arm/mm/alignment.c:alignment_init().)
> >
> > That is in the kernel itself, _after_ the decompressor has run. It is
> > not relevant to any discussion about the decompressor.
> >
> >> Currently, we depend on the CPU reset behaviour or firmwa
On 5 November 2012 12:04, Peter Maydell wrote:
> * Attended Linaro Connect; notable sessions:
>+ Ubuntu plans for QEMU for Ringtail release
> = upstream qemu has merged qemu-kvm back in so
> Ubuntu will switch to qemu from qemu-kvm for x86
> = also makes sense now to use
Hi toolchain people,
I've gone through and massaged our meetings and 1-on-1s to handle the
recent daylight savings changes. Most meetings now start at 9:15 am GMT
and 1-on-1s are packed before them if possible.
Let me know if I should massage them further,
-- Michael
___
On 29 October 2012 23:52, Bernhard Rosenkränzer
wrote:
> Hi,
> here's some patches for gcc-linaro to make it work with
> --host=arm-linux-androideabi
> They're the quick and dirty thing to do and look like they could have
> been written by Microsoft, needed something working in time for
> Connect
On 12 October 2012 00:09, Matthew Gretton-Dann
wrote:
> The Linaro Toolchain Working Group is pleased to announce the 2012.10
> release of both Linaro GCC 4.7 and Linaro GCC 4.6.
>
> Linaro GCC 4.7 2012.10 is the seventh release in the 4.7 series. Based
> off the latest GCC 4.7.2+svn191881 release
On 13 October 2012 01:53, Yvan Roux wrote:
> == Progress ==
>
> * Completed Linaro ramp up process.
> * Obtained my SSH security exception
> * Crosstool-ng :
>- Repoduced the aarch64 builds (bare and linux)
>- Updated gcc to Linaro 2012.10 and submitted the merge request.
> * Cbuild au
On 5 October 2012 12:10, Rob Herring wrote:
> I've been scratching my head with a "scheduling while atomic" bug I
> started seeing on 3.6. I can easily reproduce this problem when doing a
> wget on my system. It ultimately seems to be a combination of factors.
> The "scheduling while atomic" bug i
On 28 September 2012 22:32, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> == Progress ==
> * builtin_bswap16:
> * patch to catch (x<<8)|>8) committed upstream after confirmation
> it was OK by PowerPC guys.
>
> * backporting of builtin_bswap16 for ARM to Linaro/4.7: one of the
> tests fails. Trying to isol
On 29 September 2012 07:08, Matthew Gretton-Dann
wrote:
> == Progress ==
>
> * 4.7 AArch64 merge into gcc-linaro/4.7
>* Got Foundation model working
>* Ran testsuite - results OK - some obvious infrastructure issues though
> * Hot/Cold partitioning in PGO:
>* Posted second patch upst
On 27 September 2012 17:48, Shivamurthy Shastri
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Michael Hope
> wrote:
>>
>> On 27 September 2012 01:06, Shivamurthy Shastri
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Fathi Boudra
>> > wrote:
>>
Interested in working with us on improving the performance of Linux on
ARM? We’re looking for motivated engineers to work in our toolchain
team on compiler technology, developer tools, and low level
performance libraries. You will use your specialised knowledge to work
in the open, work upstream, a
On 27 September 2012 01:06, Shivamurthy Shastri
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Fathi Boudra
> wrote:
>>
>> On 26 September 2012 15:44, Shivamurthy Shastri
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I am using Linaro Toolchain for compiling UEFI and I am getting
>> > alignment
>> > fault as exceptio
On 22 September 2012 04:29, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> == Progress ==
> * Discussed big-endian patches for vext tests: careful review of the
> specification is required and this patch might actually expose GCC
> bugs in big-endian/Neon.
>
> * builtin_bswap16:
> * Posted 2 implementations of th
On 17 September 2012 19:49, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> Summary
> * Workaround the unwind issue for shrink-wrap
> * Verify Linaro tickets.
>
> Details:
> 1. Debugging the failed cases for shrink-wrap. To workaround the
> unwind issue, update arm_expand_epilogue to generate return not
> simple_return w
On 17 September 2012 21:21, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Current Milestones:
> || || Planned|| Estimate || Actual ||
> || clean up kvm-qemu cp i/f || 2012-09-20 || 2012-09-20 ||||
> || fake-trustzone || 2012-10-15 || 2012-10-15 ||||
>
The Linaro Toolchain Working Group is pleased to announce the 2012.09
release of both Linaro GCC 4.7 and Linaro GCC 4.6.
Linaro GCC 4.7 2012.09 is the sixth release in the 4.7 series. Based
off the latest GCC 4.7.1+svn191123 release, it includes ARM-focused
performance improvements and bug fixes.
On 12 September 2012 08:22, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> FYI
>
> There is a thread on the arm-linux-kernel mailing list about a GCC bug,
> and the Linaro version appears to be affected as well. Here's the
> thread:
>
> http://news.gmane.org/group/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/thread=186
On 10 September 2012 18:47, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> Summary:
> * Test shrink-wrap code
>
> Details:
> 1. Add simple_return support in function thumb2_expand_return for
> shrink-wrap. Here is the make check status
> * One new fail is due to code size increase. We'd disable it when
> optimizing func
On 8 September 2012 02:17, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> == Progress ==
> * Neon vext support for builtin_shuffle:
> * Committed vext patch upstream, as well as a small cleanup patch.
> * Merged vext support into gcc-linaro/4.7 branch.
I saw that, thanks. To finish up could you go to the merge re
On 3 September 2012 23:05, Matthew Gretton-Dann
wrote:
> Assaf,
>
> Just to let you know that linaro-toolchain-...@lists.launchpad.net is
> a closed list, a better place for this question is
> linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org.
>
> On 3 September 2012 11:41, Assaf Hoffman wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Wher
On 1 September 2012 03:24, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> == Progress ==
> * Validation of my vext patch in big-endian mode proved that proper
> support would be non-trivial.
> Spent a lot of time writing a self-testing executable test, which
> works in both big and little endian modes.
> Posted an
(cc'd to linaro-toolchain to archive)
Hi Matt. I've had a look at the manual builds you tried to spawn.
Here's what I did to run cbuild locally to test it:
* cd linaro
* bzr branch lp:cbuild
* cd cbuild/slaves
* cp -a example `hostname`
* cd `hostname`
* make -f ../../lib/build.mk final/gcc
Zhenqiang's been working on the later split 2 patch which causes more
constants to be built using a movw/movt instead of a constant pool
load. There was an unexpected ~10 % regression in one benchmark which
seems to be due to function alignment. I think we've tracked down the
reason but not the a
On 20 August 2012 20:54, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> On 20 August 2012 00:38, Michael Hope wrote:
>> On 18 August 2012 12:06, Ramana Radhakrishnan
>> wrote:
>>> This should have been fixed by this patch . I'm a bit surprised that
>>> we are seeing t
On 18 August 2012 12:06, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> This should have been fixed by this patch . I'm a bit surprised that
> we are seeing these failures still ?
>
> ../ports/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arm/ldsodefs.h:41:0: warning:
> "MORE_ELF_HEADER_DATA" redefined [enabled by default]
>
> http://p
The Linaro Toolchain Working Group is pleased to announce the 2012.08
release of both Linaro GCC 4.7 and Linaro GCC 4.6.
Linaro GCC 4.7 2012.08 is the fifth release in the 4.7 series. Based
off the latest GCC 4.7.1+svn189992 release, it includes many
ARM-focused performance improvements and bug fi
Hi Matt. I've fleshed out the Etherpad for the PGO and LTO session at:
http://pad.linaro.org/GzRj35tXFt
It's a topic list that needs some specifics. Could you make sure we
have basic answers to any correctness or performance questions?
Ramana, could you add the specifics from the performance c
On 15 August 2012 09:56, Michael Hope wrote:
> On 15 August 2012 00:45, Matthew Gretton-Dann
> wrote:
>> So looking at the logs this seems to be a transient data transfer error:
>>
>> The logs
>> (http://builds.linaro.org/toolchain/gcc-linaro-4.7-2012.08/logs/ar
On 15 August 2012 00:45, Matthew Gretton-Dann
wrote:
> So looking at the logs this seems to be a transient data transfer error:
>
> The logs
> (http://builds.linaro.org/toolchain/gcc-linaro-4.7-2012.08/logs/armv7l-natty-cbuild358-tcpanda02-armv5r2/toplevel.txt)
> have:
>
> make[4]: Entering direc
On 13 August 2012 23:59, Matthew Gretton-Dann
wrote:
> All,
>
> Is there anything left to go into the branches that needs to be in the
> releases this week?
>
> I believe Uli's patches have gone in - is there anything else required?
There shouldn't be anything. In general the last day for patche
On 10 August 2012 14:21, Michael Hope wrote:
> Virtual Connect is up next week. We've got two sessions lined up: the
> first on profile guided optimisation and link time optimisation, and
> the second on next steps with the vectoriser. Some other highlights
> are the one
Virtual Connect is up next week. We've got two sessions lined up: the
first on profile guided optimisation and link time optimisation, and
the second on next steps with the vectoriser. Some other highlights
are the ones on system trace, Dalvik, and Aarch64 via OpenEmbedded
bootstrap.
The schedu
On 4 August 2012 00:53, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 03/08/12 13:49, Mans Rullgard wrote:
>> I have noticed gcc has a preference for generating UXTB instructions
>> when an AND with #255 would do the same thing. This is bad, because
>> on A9 UXTB has two cycles latency compared to one cycle for A
For reference, if you see link time errors about a missing
'__dso_handle' symbol when building Android, then check if you're
using any global class instances in your multimedia libraries.
Each shared library has a __dso_handle symbol which is filled in on
load by the dynamic loader. Global class
On 7 July 2012 05:43, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> On 6 July 2012 00:10, Michael Hope wrote:
>> Hi Ramana. These are covered by the release process documentation but
>> I thought I'd fill them out.
>
> I've found another flaw with the script which means the 4.7
On 25 July 2012 23:56, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> On 25 July 2012 05:16, Michael Hope wrote:
>> FYI GCC trunk r189808 fails to build with a bootstrap comparison error:
>>
>> Comparing stages 2 and 3
>> warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
>> warning: gcc/cc1p
t which is administered by Michael Hope .
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
On 16 July 2012 13:51, Michael Hope wrote:
> We've just started running a weekly benchmark of GCC trunk and Linaro
> GCC tip. I've written a short script that compares against a baseline
> and spits out a graph:
> http://ex.seabright.co.nz/benchmarks/gcc-4.8~svn.png
>
On 19 July 2012 06:29, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Michael Hope wrote:
>
>> Hi Ramana, Ulrich. Could I have some help with an unexpected
>> testsuite failure while backporting Carrot's adddi patch?
>> testsuite/gcc.misc-tests/gcov-7.c builds and runs but aborts during
On 19 July 2012 04:31, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Michael Hope wrote:
>
>> Here's the details:
>> * The test is fine when built from the command line
>
> This is weird in particular. It probably means that you built it in
> a way where it picks up system libg
Hi Ramana, Ulrich. Could I have some help with an unexpected
testsuite failure while backporting Carrot's adddi patch?
testsuite/gcc.misc-tests/gcov-7.c builds and runs but aborts during
leave() due to unexpected results.
The merge request is here:
https://code.launchpad.net/~michaelh1/gcc-linar
On 17 July 2012 05:51, William Mills wrote:
> On 07/15/2012 09:51 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
>>
>> We've just started running a weekly benchmark of GCC trunk and Linaro
>> GCC tip. I've written a short script that compares against a baseline
>> and spits out a
We've just started running a weekly benchmark of GCC trunk and Linaro
GCC tip. I've written a short script that compares against a baseline
and spits out a graph:
http://ex.seabright.co.nz/benchmarks/gcc-4.8~svn.png
http://ex.seabright.co.nz/benchmarks/gcc-linaro-4.7%2bbzr.png
I'll switch the b
Hi Ramana. These are covered by the release process documentation but
I thought I'd fill them out.
The builds are completing. You can see the finished grid at:
http://ex.seabright.co.nz/helpers/buildlog/gcc-linaro-4.7-2012
Click on 'Compare' for each machine to see the results like:
http://e
tibility in std::list.
>
> Matthias
>
> revno: 115001 [merge]
> committer: Michael Hope
> branch nick: 4.7
> timestamp: Tue 2012-07-03 20:16:55 +1200
> message:
> Merge from FSF (GCC SVN branches/gcc-4_7-branch:189098)
> added:
> gcc/config.gcc.rej
> gcc/
On 29 June 2012 23:07, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> linaro-toolchain-boun...@lists.linaro.org wrote on 29.06.2012 12:19:52:
>
>> For Uli's merge request, there is only one new UNSUPPORTED:
>>
>> -PASS: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-int.c -O0 -g thread simulation
> test
>> +UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/sim
On 3 April 2012 00:12, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Right now, it's impossible to merge from lp:gcc/4.7 to lp:gcc-linaro/4.7.
> This is due to a BZR bug of some kind, so hopefully we won't have to work
> around it for too much longer.
>
> According to the nice folks at #bzr, here's how to do
e list.
> Thanks!
> -Zhenqiang
> On 28 June 2012 09:19, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
>> On 28 June 2012 05:55, Michael Hope wrote:
>>> We've had a few testsuite failures recently which were due to the auto
>>> builder itself. I've started a log at:
>>>
On 29 June 2012 15:46, Xiao Jiang wrote:
> Michael Hope wrote:
>>
>> On 29 June 2012 15:13, Xiao Jiang wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I tried codesourcy
>>> arm-2012.03-57-arm-none-linux-gnueabi-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.bz2, and g
On 29 June 2012 15:13, Xiao Jiang wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I tried codesourcy
> arm-2012.03-57-arm-none-linux-gnueabi-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.bz2, and get
> below err infos.
>
> Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `sdiv R2,R0,R1'
> Error: selected processor does not support ARM mode `udiv
We've had a few testsuite failures recently which were due to the auto
builder itself. I've started a log at:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/CBuild/FailureLog
so we can track the incident rate and see if there's a pattern.
Zhenqiang, if you see an unexpected failure could you r
I've gone through and checked the 64 bit operation improvements that
Andrew has made to GCC. For everything but the Cortex-A8, GCC uses
the NEON unit for 64 bit operations and Andrew's improvements mean we
can stay on NEON for longer without having an expensive transfer back
and forth to the core
On 18 June 2012 21:14, Marius Cetateanu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to build some shared libraries with the Linaro Android toolchain.
> For all of my libraries I get the following errors from the linker:
>
> |BlaBla.cpp.o: requires unsupported dynamic reloc R_ARM_REL32; recompile
> with -fPIC
>
>
On 11 June 2012 21:53, Mans Rullgard wrote:
> On 11 June 2012 02:14, Michael Hope wrote:
>> We talked at Connect about finishing up the cortex-strings work by
>> upstreaming them into Bionic, Newlib, and GLIBC. I've written up one
>> of our standard &#
On 15 June 2012 01:22, Tom Deblauwe wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am wondering if there is support for gettext in the linaro toolchain? How
> can I check it if it should work or not?
> I can compile and link the "setlocale()" and "bindtextdomain()" and
> "textdomain()" functions, however, the translation
The Linaro Toolchain Working Group is pleased to announce the 2012.06
release of both Linaro GCC 4.7 and Linaro GCC 4.6.
Linaro GCC 4.7 2012.06 is the third release in the 4.7 series. Based
off the latest GCC 4.7.0+svn188038 release, it includes performance
improvements especially around 64 bit op
On 12 June 2012 18:53, Akash D wrote:
> Hello Michael,
>
> Thanks for reply.
>
> The required information is mentioned below.
>
> Compiler Used --->
>
> http://launchpad.net/gcc-arm-embedded
>
> Version number >
>
> arm-none-eabi-gcc (GNU Tools for ARM Embedded Processors) 4.6.2 20110921
> (re
We talked at Connect about finishing up the cortex-strings work by
upstreaming them into Bionic, Newlib, and GLIBC. I've written up one
of our standard 'Output' pages:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Outputs/CortexStrings
with a summary of what we did, what else exists, benchma
On 8 June 2012 17:23, Akash D wrote:
> Hello Sir/Madam,
>
> I am using MK60FN1M0VLQ12 (COTREX-M4) processor for my development.
>
> I am using float and double data types in my code. When I perform any
> mathematical operation on these variables, the processor goes to Hard Fault
> Exception.
>
>
On 2 June 2012 04:14, Ken Werner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> OpenEmbedded-Core/meta-linaro:
> * added a default xorg.conf for the qemuarmv7a MACHINE
> * necessary because OE-Core master switched from Xfbdev to Xorg
> * noticed that hard float with Linaro GCC 4.6 works on denzil but is broken
> on master
I've cancelled today's meeting due to the UK and NZ holidays. I'll
see you all at the Thursday standup.
-- Michael
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
On 25 May 2012 01:04, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 24 May 2012 03:45, Michael Hope wrote:
>> Hi Peter, Riku. I've written up a page covering the KVM integration
>> work done this quarter at:
>> https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Outputs/KVMIntegration
>&g
On 24 May 2012 19:45, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On 24 May 2012 05:45, Michael Hope wrote:
>> Hi Peter, Riku. I've written up a page covering the KVM integration
>> work done this quarter at:
>> https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Outputs/KVMIntegration
>
Hi Peter, Riku. I've written up a page covering the KVM integration
work done this quarter at:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Outputs/KVMIntegration
Could you review it please, including the instructions at:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Outputs/KVMIntegratio
Here's my list of things I'd like to knock off during Connect:
https://wiki.linaro.org/MichaelHope/Sandbox/Q2.12Plans
Have a think about specific things you'd like to achieve as I'll be
asking on Monday.
-- Michael
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
li
On 22 May 2012 17:34, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 17.05.2012 10:29, Michael Hope wrote:
>> sorry, unimplemented: Thumb-1 hard-float VFP ABI errors: tests where
>> they set the architecture to ARMv5T and use our default Thumb mode.
>> This causes the compiler to fail as it do
The Precise based hard float auto builders are now online. Every
merge request and commit to gcc-linaro will now be built build both on
a Natty softfp system and a Precise hard float. Let's run this in
parallel for a while before updating the validation lab.
I've also updated the x86 cloud build
On 17 May 2012 18:23, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
>> Some are marked as unsupported but shouldn't be:
>>
>> +UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11a.c
>> +UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11b.c
>> +UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11.c
>> +UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/gen-vect-11c.c
>> +UNSU
Hi Zhenqiang. I've had a look at the difference between testsuite
results on our current softfp Natty builders and the new hard float
Precise builders. The diff and notes is at:
http://people.linaro.org/~michaelh/incoming/hard-float-builder-diff.txt
There's a lot of commonality:
/usr/bin/ld: c
There will be no release of Linaro GDB this month. We're busy working
on upstreaming Android support and will backport them as they come
ready.
-- Michael
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailm
The Linaro Toolchain Working Group is pleased to announce the 2012.05
release of both Linaro GCC 4.7 and Linaro GCC 4.6.
Linaro GCC 4.7 2012.05 is the second release in the 4.7 series. Based
off the latest GCC 4.7.0+svn187448 release, it includes performance
improvements especially around 64 bit o
1 - 100 of 585 matches
Mail list logo
