It fails in the same place on x86_64. r99466 seems to be OK. I've
got builds of the intermediate revisions running as well. You can
track progress on:
http://ex.seabright.co.nz/helpers/buildlog
and on #linaro-cbuild on freenode.
-- Michael
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
On 1 February 2011 16:23, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>>
>> Are they actually broken ? I'd be worried if that were the case. My
>> understanding is that the
>> existing ones are being used for the Neon intrinsics / builtins.
>
> Yes, they're broken, for the reason Ira originally points out:
Right. Th
Hi,
I continued to work on vect_interleave and vect_extract implementation on NEON:
* debugged the compiler to find out what's the problem with
neon_vzip/vuzp_internal
* fixed it following Uli's advice
* checked how neon_vzip/vuzp_internal work for intrinsics by
writing tests
* fixed the patch
Hello,
Profiling Denbech:
* The profiling information on x86 indicate that some benchmarks might need
to run longer as helper functions such as t_run_test are reported to be
hot.
So I've increased the time each benchmark is executed and will continue to
experiment with that for the problematic b
I can't reproduce this failure.
I did the build using am i686-natty chroot, but with an amd64 bit
kernel, if that makes a difference.
I did it with default configure options, so I'm going to try again with
the same options you did and see what happens.
Andrew
On 03/02/11 01:17, Michael Hop
I've had a go with running the QEMU release candidate. Short story is
that it boots to a prompt against the 11.05 alpha2 release so I'm
happy.
It was a messy road so I've written up my train of though here:
https://wiki.linaro.org/MichaelHope/Sandbox/QEMU
Note that if you follow the instruction
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:59 AM, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> I can't reproduce this failure.
>
> I did the build using am i686-natty chroot, but with an amd64 bit kernel, if
> that makes a difference.
>
> I did it with default configure options, so I'm going to try again with the
> same options you did
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 2 February 2011 13:16, David Gilbert wrote
>> 480MB does appear excessive; to be a little fair to gcc that file does
>> look like it's trying to
>> build itself as a vast inline'd set of switch statements so it will be
>> stressing the com
