+ linaro-toolchain as I don't understand the CI issues on patchwork.
On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 8:40 PM Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>
> Hi Ramana,
>
> > Hope this helps.
>
> Yes definitely!
>
> >> Passes regress/bootstrap, OK for commit?
> >
> > Target ? armhf ? --with-arch , -with-fpu , -with-float param
On 04/06/2018 19:12, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 06/04/2018 11:00 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
Do you plan to adapt them to glibc?
Ramana suggested starting "upstream" in cortex-strings and copying to glibc
from there, as a general work-flow preference. I believe this has been the
case for a
On 04/06/2018 19:30, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 06/04/2018 11:19 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
Yes, using cortex-strings as the bridge is indeed the preferred way. I am
asking which strategy do you see:
- Adding ifunc variants and add them as default if system advertise SVE
support.
I'm curious about what workloads / benchmarks you considered for this activity
- the traditional spec benchmarks don't really trigger anything in libatomic -
so where do we see the improvements or none ?
regards
Ramana
From: linaro-toolchain on behalf o
On 31/03/16 18:26, Jim Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 5:12 AM, fengwei.yin wrote:
>> Because gcc 4.9 could build this file without any issue, I apply
>> --save-temps
>> with gcc 4.9. The ii file is attached. Can't see significant differences.
>
> There is a patch in gcc-5 to make unified
On 31/03/16 18:26, Jim Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 5:12 AM, fengwei.yin wrote:
>> Because gcc 4.9 could build this file without any issue, I apply
>> --save-temps
>> with gcc 4.9. The ii file is attached. Can't see significant differences.
>
> There is a patch in gcc-5 to make unified
On 24/03/16 13:14, Vitali Sokhin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> Is there a roadmap for adding support for ARMv8.2 ? Specifically for
> assembler to support new instructions and SPRs?
FSF binutils-2.26 has aarch64 support for v8.2.
FSF binutils trunk (or what will be FSF binutils-2.27) will have aarch32
On 21/03/16 04:30, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> == This Week ==
>
> * LTO (3/10)
> a) section anchors:
> - prototype patch to bind functions to global vars
> - looked at balanced partitioning
> b) chromium LTO build fails with ICE on trunk for arm-linux-gnueabihf:
> http://pastebin.com/sX6yKLBP
As
Ryan,
On 17/04/2015 22:58, Ryan Arnold wrote:
Hello,
In an effort to provide a longer quality control window for quarterly
releases the Linaro Toolchain Working Group will be making some changes
to the release process starting with the forthcoming 2015.04 products.
Little will change for the
are Development Engineering Manager
LSI Corporation
Box 1024, Knarrarnäsgatan 15
SE-164 21 Kista, Sweden
TEL +46 8 594 607 09
FAX +46 8 594 607 10
CELL +46 73 80 444 88
magnus.karls...@lsi.com
--
Ramana Radhakrishnan
Principal Engineer
ARM Ltd.
Direct - +44 1223 400495
-- IMPORTANT NOTICE:
> -Original Message-
> From: linaro-toolchain-boun...@lists.linaro.org [mailto:linaro-
> toolchain-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Wookey
> Sent: 23 February 2014 20:43
> To: Rob Savoye
> Cc: Linaro ToolChain
> Subject: Re: [Weekly] 17-21 FEB 2013
>
> +++ Rob Savoye [2014-02-23 08:
> -Original Message-
> From: linaro-toolchain-boun...@lists.linaro.org [mailto:linaro-
> toolchain-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Kugan
> Sent: 07 June 2013 01:58
> To: Mans Rullgard
> Cc: linaro-toolchain
> Subject: Re: Failure to optimise (a/b) and (a%b) into single
> __aeabi_id
> -Original Message-
> From: linaro-toolchain-boun...@lists.linaro.org [mailto:linaro-
> toolchain-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Mans Rullgard
> Sent: 20 March 2013 14:17
> To: Renato Golin
> Cc: Kristof Beyls; Linaro Toolchain; Tim Northover
> Subject: Re: LLVM ARM NEON VMUL.f32
> -Original Message-
> From: linaro-toolchain-boun...@lists.linaro.org [mailto:linaro-
> toolchain-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Yvan Roux
> Sent: 21 February 2013 15:54
> To: linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
> Subject: AArch64 asm statement question
>
> Hi,
>
> in the example b
> > This one didn't do as well as expected as it ended up causing more
> zero extends than necessary if my memory serves me right. This could be
> a course for a low priority future blueprint.
>
> Dropped. This plus flag_ree in the future?
I'm not so sure that flag_ree will help AArch32 in the fu
> -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
> Subject: Clearing out past branches
>
> Hi Ramana. You have the following branche
> From: Yvan Roux [yvan.r...@linaro.org]
> Sent: 25 November 2012 19:51
> To: Ramana Radhakrishnan
> Cc: linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
> Subject: Re: Atomic builtins questions
> > That is correct. The addresses need to be aligned as per the restrictions in
> > the
Yvan,
LDAR is intended for an atomic load acquire. See
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg01397.html
for compiler support upstream.
regards,
Ramana
> -Original Message-
> From: linaro-toolchain-boun...@lists.linaro.org [mailto:linaro-
> toolchain-boun...@lists.linaro.org] O
I don't recall talking about hot cold partitioning and EEMBC .
I'm assuming this is regarding the SPEC2k failure that I've been debugging.
Thanks,
Ramana
From: linaro-toolchain-boun...@lists.linaro.org
[linaro-toolchain-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Beha
,
Ramana
From: Yvan Roux [mailto:yvan.r...@linaro.org]
Sent: 23 November 2012 10:29
To: Ramana Radhakrishnan
Cc: linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: Atomic builtins questions
Hi Ramana and Peter,
There is no issue in the first case. You are correct that the dmb's there are
to e
Hi Yvan,
There is no issue in the first case. You are correct that the dmb's there are
to ensure the sequential consistency as you'd want to see with __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST
in the call to the builtin. However what you must remember is that STRs are
guaranteed to be single-copy atomic by the architect
Won't be able to look at it till later in the afternoon . got a few other
things to finish up during the day.
Ramana
> -Original Message-
> From: Zhenqiang Chen [mailto:zhenqiang.c...@linaro.org]
> Sent: 16 October 2012 08:44
> To: Ramana Radhakrishnan
> Cc: linaro
amana
From: Zhenqiang Chen [zhenqiang.c...@linaro.org]
Sent: 16 October 2012 04:44
To: Ramana Radhakrishnan
Cc: linaro-toolchain
Subject: Re: Add dwarf/unwind info in epilogue
On 16 October 2012 10:22, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> Zhenqiang,
>
> I've been spending
amana
Ramana Radhakrishnan
ARM Ltd.
On 15 Oct 2012, at 10:57, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> Hi Ramana,
>
> The attached file is a reference patch to add more dwarf/unwind info
> in epilogue. Please help to review.
>
> Without the patch, dwarf check fail for the following cases
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 these failures still ?
>>
>> ../ports/sysdeps/unix/sysv
== Progress ==
Linaro tasks.
* Some work on the intrinsics patches.
* Looked into auto-inc-dec stuff. Not enough improvements with scheduler
changes.
* Helped Matt get up to speed and wrote up some stuff for Christophe
with the vext examples.
* Investigated a bug that Mans reported upstream with
Looks like I missed sending this for 2 weeks in a row.
== Progress ==
Linaro tasks.
* Some upstream discussions on neon testsuite bug. Poked at ML for
quite a bit. Looks like regexps in the neon intrinsics testsuite is
just wrong.
* Looking at a better way of doing the 64 bit arithmetic patche
Hi Uli,
The currently open tasks wiki page has now been moved out of my
Sandbox and in here.
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/GCCPerfConnectQ212Notes
Updated for status as of today . Please let me know if I've missed something .
regards,
Ramana
_
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2012-08-07
Any updates please let me know or add to the wiki page as appropriate ?
Ramana
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listi
== Progress ==
* Fixed PR54051
* Improved neon intrinsics testsuite. While still not an execution
based testsuite atleast we get compile time tests that are sensible C.
Exposed issues - wrote patches.
that improve vabal , vaba intrinsics. Fix an issue with costs,
fixed an issue with splitters
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/cc1plus-checksum.o differs
> warning: gcc/cc1obj-checksum.o differs
> warning: gcc/cc1objplus-check
Hi Steven,
Nice to hear from you.
On 23 July 2012 19:25, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hello Ramana,
>
> For your PGO list:
>
> * please note that I've been working on PGO for switch code, and also
> for chains of if-statements with a common condition variable (with Tom
> de Vries)
Yes, that's what
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2012-07-24
is now online. If folks have anything they'd like to add can they do so ?
Ramana
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/li
== Progress ==
* Looking at auto-inc-dec patches.
* sched-pressure now on by default in FSF 4.8
* Background look into neon costs and vdup improvements.
* Some upstream patch review.
* Discovered http://gcc.gnu.org/PR54051 while testing a neon
intrinsics patch and wrote a patch to fix it.
==
The Linaro Toolchain Working Group is pleased to announce the 2012.07
release of both Linaro GCC 4.7 and Linaro GCC 4.6.
Linaro GCC 4.7 2012.07 is the fourth release in the 4.7 series. Based
off the latest GCC 4.7.0+svn189098 release, it includes performance
improvements around choice of auto-incr
On 6 July 2012 16:52, Mans Rullgard wrote:
> I ran my usual set of benchmarks of libav compiled with the current gcc
> releases (hand-written assembly disabled). The results are in this
> spreadsheet:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AguHvNGaLXy9dHExeWZ1YWZ1c0s2VnpJRkl2bVRPU2c
>
> F
RAG
Amber: 4.7 2012.07 source release for reasons described below.
Green : 4.6 2012.07 source release done.
== Progress ==
* Worked on auto-inc-dec scheduler changes.First cut patch looking reasonable.
* Committed the neon permute intrinsics upstream.
* Release week : release tarballs prepare
Thanks for doing this yet again.
On 6 July 2012 16:52, Mans Rullgard wrote:
> I ran my usual set of benchmarks of libav compiled with the current gcc
> releases (hand-written assembly disabled). The results are in this
> spreadsheet:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AguHvNGaLXy9dHE
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 release
testing we've done is broken. Before leaving today I thought I'd do a
md5sum on the
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.
>
> 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 'Compar
Draft release notes are here
https://wiki.linaro.org/RamanaRadhakrishnan/Sandbox/GCC201207DraftReleaseNotes#preview
Can folks have a quick look to see if I've missed something ?
Ramana
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.o
== Progress ==
* Testing costs changes for Neon intrinsics.
* Fixed the regression I added to the Linaro 4.6 tree - committed
there. Looked at a few vagaries around testresults.
* Started looking at auto-inc-dec scheduler changes.
* 1/2 a day lost to visa application process
* Usual 1:1s .
*
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2012-07-03
Ramana
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
On 29 June 2012 11:00, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> On 29 June 2012 17:12, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> wrote:
>> On 29 June 2012 07:52, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
>>> Another two cases fail in precise test:
>>>
>>> -PASS: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields
On 29 June 2012 07:52, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> Another two cases fail in precise test:
>
> -PASS: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-3.c -O0 -g thread simulation
> test
> +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-3.c -O0 -g thread
> simulation test
> -PASS: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/a
== Progress ==
* Tried a number of testcases for the shuffles . Needed to add
support to the C++ frontend for the __builtin_shuffle support.
Fortunately there existed a patch - I tested it and it looked good.
Committed upstream. However the original author had some concerns
whether it would work
I noticed this bug upstream about C++11 and C++98 ABI
incompatibilities , in case someone is using the C++11 features,
please be aware that there is an ABI bug lurking.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53646
Ramana
___
linaro-toolchain maili
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2012-06-12
Rather late but it's just been effectively a week since Connect. The
only additional thing I've added is the vectorizer cost model and the
libav regression that Mans discovered .
regards,
Ramana
_
== Progress ==
* Connect last week.
* Worked through the open issues and open work items related to
performance and we've got a clear list of things that are currently in
flight. Now to keep track of this better.
https://wiki.linaro.org/RamanaRadhakrishnan/Sandbox//RRQ212ConnectNotes
and move t
Thanks to the change in the schedule the agenda is here.
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2012-05-28
If there are any topics folks would like to add to this for today
please feel free to do so now given we have a session in under 2
hours.
regards,
Ramana
Progress
* Fixed PR53334 upstream - something that broke eembc builds.
* Usual meetings.
* Work through some of the speed tickets and upstream bugzilla perf
tickets in preparation for connect.
* Prepared for connect. Looked through some open issues and
investigating PR48941 patch. Uli and I had so
Progress
* Proposed backport for vfp addressing modes patch.
* Investigated the build issue with EEMBC and have a candidate patch
for upstream trunk. (PR53334)
* Investigated auto-inc-dec sched changes.
* Some upstream patch review.
Plans
* Work on auto-inc-dec sched changes.
* Finish PR53334 p
On 16 May 2012 13:41, Mans Rullgard wrote:
> On 16 May 2012 10:29, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> wrote:
>> On 16 May 2012 10:04, Michael Hope wrote:
>>> Hi Ramana. FYI, gcc trunk fails to bootstrap with:
>>>
>>> ../../../../gcc-4.8~/libgcc/libgcc2.c: In functi
On 16 May 2012 10:04, Michael Hope wrote:
> Hi Ramana. FYI, gcc trunk fails to bootstrap with:
>
> ../../../../gcc-4.8~/libgcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__mulvdi3':
> ../../../../gcc-4.8~/libgcc/libgcc2.c:397:1: internal compiler error:
> in df_uses_record, at df-scan.c:3179
>
> A cross compiler fa
On 16 May 2012 10:04, Michael Hope wrote:
> Hi Ramana. FYI, gcc trunk fails to bootstrap with:
>
> ../../../../gcc-4.8~/libgcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__mulvdi3':
> ../../../../gcc-4.8~/libgcc/libgcc2.c:397:1: internal compiler error:
> in df_uses_record, at df-scan.c:3179
>
This looks like htt
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2012-05-15
I've put together an initial version of the blueprints we could consider .
Are there any other topics that folks are interested in adding ? If
so, could you add it to the wiki page.
Thanks,
Ramana
__
Progress
* Committed the VFP addressing modes patch.
* Investigated PR48941 patch a bit more - looks like an issue with the
register allocator around vzip and vuzp patterns and not sure what the
easiest way of sorting this really is. I wonder if we should be
looking at some of the issues around
ve spills causing such a regression.
For the record this was just a pointer to a paper that might be of
interest . I haven't really investigated the kernels to see how useful
they really are :) .
regards,
Ramana
>
> Regards
> RKS
> -Original Message-
> From: Ra
days.
Ramana
>
> Regards
> RKS
>
> -Original Message-
> From: linaro-toolchain-boun...@lists.linaro.org
> [mailto:linaro-toolchain-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Ramana
> Radhakrishnan
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 3:44 AM
> To: Ulrich Weigand
> Cc:
Progress
Away last week - nothing to report. Will be in BST + 4:30 timezone
this week.
Plans
* Finish off the VFP addressing modes patch.
* Follow up on iterations idiom patch upstream
* Pursue backporting gnu_unique_object upstream.
* Look at some of the existing blueprints and start discuss
Hi Uli,
While looking into something else I ran into these - I wonder how many
of these GCC manages to vectorize ...
http://www.netlib.org/benchmark/livermorec . These look interesting
from a vectorizer kernels point of view.
The other interesting paper of note was this PACT paper on
vectorizati
=== Progress ===
* Worked on the VFP addressing modes patch upstream. Handled most
comments. Final version has finished testing and looks almost ready to
commit.
* Investigated an issue with min type transformations for loop
terminating conditions. Wrote up a small patch which appears to do the
r
On 11 April 2012 17:21, Mans Rullgard wrote:
> On 11 April 2012 16:16, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>> "Singh, Ravi Kumar (Ravi)" wrote:
>>
>>> Are there any pragmas for selectively disabling (in one chunk of
>>> code) the vectorization, when its enabled globally.
>>
>> No, there are not (just like for
On 5 April 2012 09:58, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> At the last call Michael asked if we could push this call back by 30
> minutes given the changes due to daylight savings. Does anyone have
> any objections to a new time of 10 a.m. BST - 11 a.m. Central
> Eur
=== Progress ===
* Worked on VFP addressing patch and corrected the failures.
* Got SPEC2k up and running with hot cold partitioning. Some SEGVs
that need investigation. In
general results appear to be better in quite a few cases.
* Investigated an issue with a merge request for upstream 4.7 branc
Hi there,
At the last call Michael asked if we could push this call back by 30
minutes given the changes due to daylight savings. Does anyone have
any objections to a new time of 10 a.m. BST - 11 a.m. Central
European - 9 p.m. New Zealand. ?
cheers
Ramana
___
>
> Anyway, I doubt there's anybody else needs to know this: I've just posted it
> in case I get hit by a bus before next month.
It's probably something that should be documented and linked from
BzrTips or a "how to do an upstream merge" in the toolchain wiki (if
we had something like that ) ?
>
=== Progress ===
* Caught up on email backlog.
* Reworked the ARM backend specific bits of the VFP addressing modes
patch and submitted again for some benchmarking and testing. Finished
the PRE_MODIFY and POST_MODIFY bits of that as well.
* Wrote up a small blueprint on the shrink-wrapping work.
*
I've written up a blueprint for Shrink-wrapping here.
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/+spec/shrink-wrapping
Comments are welcome.
Ramana
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/l
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2012-04-03
If there's anything people would like to add please do so on the wiki page.
Ramana
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/l
== Progress ===
* Off sick for 4 days last week.
* Looked at the results for the vfp writeback modes and caught up with
some analysis on the one day I did work.
=== Plans ===
* Catch up on email after absences.
* Catch up on patches backlog
Absences.
* Apr 12-13 : Euro-LLVM London.
* 1 week ho
==Progress===
* Did some work to improve code generation for addressing modes in VFP
registers.
* Looked at some more cases and detected that there are 2 areas of
improvement for
the future
* shrink-wrapping
* Too many unnecessary ldm / stm stacking for cases with small
structures being
== Issues ==
It would be nice to have perf installed on the porter boxes in the
canonical data center as well if we are allowed to run benchmarks
there. Filed RT request.
==Progress===
* Understood STB_GNU_UNIQUE_NOTE - Helped fix a problem with compiz
crashing but then it was a very nice testca
On 8 March 2012 21:24, Michael Hope wrote:
> On 9 March 2012 07:08, Ken Werner wrote:
>> On 03/08/2012 09:03 AM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
>>>
>> Ah, thanks - I forgot about that. It saves about 16GB of space and running
>> on tmpfs saves about 30 minutes on my setup. Thanks!
>
> You can build a
Matthias,
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/+bug/949805
This affects ubuntu-gcc as well and the work around is to try the
--enable-gnu-unique-object compiler configure time flag. Could you try
to rebuild a toolchain with the configure option
--enable-gnu-unique-object and check if tests d
(Hit send too soon on my last mail and appear to have removed linaro-toolchain
Apologies to those who get duplicates)
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:00:36PM +, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> Hi Alexandros,
>
> Could you use the linaro-toolchain list for stuff like this please?
> You're more likely to find
On 6 March 2012 16:55, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> since this long-standing problem just hit me again, I had a quick look at
> test failures in our farm that appear to occur whenever the directory name
> contains a string that is being checked for via a "scan-assembler" test,
> e.g.:
>
>
==Progress===
* Finished off PGO patch - sent upstream.
* Finished off the ABI tests - sent upstream.
* Investigated fixes for LP 942307 - a problem with kernel builds for
android. Backported a fix from Uli last year.
* Upstream patch review.
* Small configury done for SPEC2k as far as HC partitio
is now here
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2012-03-06
Please add any topics that you might consider interesting for next time.
Ramana
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org
On 2 March 2012 12:29, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> As you know, the compiler currently has difficulties choosing between
> whether to do an operation in NEON or not.
>
I have put this on the agenda for Tuesday's call - There is a bit of
detail here that I haven't digested fully which is wh
On holiday last week and at connect week before that.
==Progress===
* Recovered from jet-lag and started to catch up on email.
* Patch review week.
* Cleared out a bit of my patch backlog.
* Helped Asa with some bug triaging.
* Read up a bit about ssat and usat and what we should be doing with
ot
Hi ,
This is now at :
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2012-02-07
Please add any topics that need to be added in the wiki page.
Thanks,
Ramana
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.li
The Linaro Toolchain Working Group is pleased to announce the 2012.02
release of Linaro GCC 4.6 and Linaro GCC 4.5.
Linaro GCC 4.6 2012.02 is the twelfth release in the 4.6 series. Based
off the latest GCC 4.6.2+svn183786, it contains a few bug
fixes and backports Cortex-A7 and Cortex-A15 support
Hi Michael,
On 2 February 2012 02:44, Michael Hope wrote:
> I've set up a new user on my laptop that we can use for experimenting
> with benchmarks during Connect. Here's what we've got:
> * A user called 'connect'
> * Ramana, Ulrich, Åsa, and myself can log in via SSH
works for me .
> * bz
On 1 February 2012 19:33, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>
> Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote on 01.02.2012
> 16:28:04:
>
>> This patch should be queued for 4.8 .Sounds sensible to me.
>
> OK, thanks for the review!
>
>> > (As an aside, it might likewise be helpful to u
On 1 February 2012 23:08, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> On 1 February 2012 19:33, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>>
>> Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote on 01.02.2012
>> 16:28:04:
>>
>>> This patch should be queued for 4.8 .Sounds sensible to me.
>>
>> OK, thanks
On 1 February 2012 19:33, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>
> Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote on 01.02.2012
> 16:28:04:
>
>> This patch should be queued for 4.8 .Sounds sensible to me.
>
> OK, thanks for the review!
>
>> > (As an aside, it might likewise be helpful to u
Hi Uli,
Thanks for the detailed analysis.
>
> The reason for this particular code sequence turns out to be as follows:
> The middle end tries to store the LSB vector lane to memory, and uses the
> vec_extract named pattern to do so. This pattern currently only supports
> an "s_register_operand"
>
> Attempted to create a Linaro GCC 4.7 branch, but my test build failed, so
> that'll have to wait until it's stabilized a little.
There was a problem last week with libstdc++ builds last week but
AFAIK it's all now been fixed. FSF 4.7 bootstrapped fine last on
Sunday as per what I've seen on gc
==Progress===
* Fixed PR48308 on FSF trunk. Needs backporting to FSF GCC 4.6 branch
* Fixed a number of failing testcases on trunk.
* Read up on Partial-partial PRE . Slow progress but getting a handle
on the theory now. A couple of approaches being benchmarked . Still
slow progress.
* Debugge
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2012-01-24
do folks have anything to add to this ?
Ramana
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
Mostly bug hunting week with some time on Partial partial PRE.
==Progress===
* Fixed PR50313 - backport submitted to Linaro 4.6 branch for testing
- Testing on FSF GCC 4.6 branch as well currently.
* Followed up on PR48308 fix . No reply yet.
* Triaged some of the test failures that we are cur
On 10 January 2012 00:58, Michael Hope wrote:
> Ramana, could you update the performance call for two weeks time?
> Maybe move it to linaro-events so I can edit it.
Changed the conference call id for the performance call and moved it
linaro-events. Can you double check it looks ok ?
Ramana
>
>
==Progress===
* Backported one part of the partial-partial PRE patch . Still looking into it.
* Investigate PR48308 - a bug where combine was generating incorrect
transformations.
* Reopened PR50313 - a bug which I originally thought was a dup of PR48308.
* Looked at upstream bugzilla for some
==Progress===
* Short week - 4 days only after the bank holiday monday.
* Investigated PR48308 for a bit.
* Caught up with emails after vacation.
* Looked at fate an automatic tester for libav to validate my fixed
to fp conversions . Need to finish that off.
* 1 more bug with output_move_doubl
Hi,
Does anyone have anything they'd like to bring up in tomorrow's
performance call. ? I don't have any topics other than following on
action items from last time's call - which was comparing movw/ movt
with constant pools .
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2012-01-10
P
On 4 January 2012 15:09, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Ramana Radhakrishnan writes:
>> On 29 December 2011 10:21, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>> The remaining change for neon-strided-load-extract is to allow fwprop.c
>>> to propagate:
>>>
>>>
On 29 December 2011 10:21, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> The remaining change for neon-strided-load-extract is to allow fwprop.c
> to propagate:
>
> (set (reg X) (subreg (reg Y) N))
>
> even if no further simplifications are possible. I posted the original
> patch for comments here:
>
> http:/
On 3 January 2012 15:29, Andy Doan wrote:
> anyone have a suggestion for this person?
>
Done on the forum
Ramana
> Original Message
> Subject: New question: problem in installing Linaro tools on Ask Linaro
> Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 21:31:57 -0800 (PST)
> From: Ask Li
Hi,
If folks want to put anything on the agenda can you please add it to
the wiki page here ?
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Meetings/2011-12-13
Ramana
___
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.l
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
