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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
binWsrE0LGKO9.bin
Description: Binary data
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>>
>
> 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.
>>>
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,
>
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
>>
>> >
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
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
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
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*-*-
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
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:
>>
>>
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
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:
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
>
&
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
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.
>>
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
