Re: Release 2.23: Ping #2

Re: Release 2.23: Ping #2

[Walter Lee]

Is it possible to backport the following:

http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-09/msg00100.html

This fixes a bug when linking with -relro -now, which is needed to
support glibc.

Thanks,

Walter

Re: Release 2.23: Ping #2

[Walter Lee]

On 9/17/2012 7:05 AM, Walter Lee wrote:
> 
> Is it possible to backport the following:
> 
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-09/msg00100.html
> 
> This fixes a bug when linking with -relro -now, which is needed to
> support glibc.

Also the followup fix to suppress a gcc 4.7 compiler warning:

http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-09/msg00103.html

Thanks,

Walter

Re: Release 2.23: Ping #2

[Tristan Gingold]

On Sep 17, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Walter Lee wrote:

> On 9/17/2012 7:05 AM, Walter Lee wrote:
>> 
>> Is it possible to backport the following:
>> 
>> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-09/msg00100.html
>> 
>> This fixes a bug when linking with -relro -now, which is needed to
>> support glibc.
> 
> Also the followup fix to suppress a gcc 4.7 compiler warning:
> 
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-09/msg00103.html

Now committed.

Tristan.

FW: Release 2.23: Ping #2

[Eggone, NagaJyothi]

Hi Tristan,

You might have missed this request for backport to 2.23 I made last week. If it is not too late, please backport these two patches to the 2.23 branch. The patches are:
1)PR14423 fix -  http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00075.html
2) Btver1 and Btver2 enablement patch
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00127.html

Thanks,
NagaJyothi
Saravanan


-----Original Message-----
From: Eggone, NagaJyothi 
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 8:32 PM
To: binutils@sourceware.org
Cc: Ekanathan, Saravanan; Eggone, NagaJyothi
Subject: RE: Release 2.23: Ping #2


Hi Tristan,
  Please backport following patches to 2.23 branch:
1)PR14423 fix -  http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00075.html
2) Btver1 and Btver2 enablement patch
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00127.html

Regards,
Saravanan
Nagajyothi


-----Original Message-----
From: binutils-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:binutils-owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Tristan Gingold
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 2:32 PM
To: binutils Development
Subject: Release 2.23: Ping #2

I think all the patches that were requested have been backported to the 2.23 branch.  If I missed a patch, please tell me ASAP.
If you have a new backport request, please tell us ASAP too.

Ideally, I'd like to be in a state where I can do the release at anytime before Friday.

Thanks,
Tristan.

Re: Release 2.23: Ping #2

[Tristan Gingold]

On Sep 11, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Eggone, NagaJyothi wrote:

> Hi Tristan,
> 
> You might have missed this request for backport to 2.23 I made last week. If it is not too late, please backport these two patches to the 2.23 branch. The patches are:
> 1)PR14423 fix -  http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00075.html
> 2) Btver1 and Btver2 enablement patch
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00127.html

Yes, this patch is still on my list.  Thank you for providing the binutils-cvs url.

Tristan.

Re: Release 2.23: Ping #2

[Doug Kwan (關振德)]

Hi Tristan,

    Is it okay to include this? I just fixed a bug in the PPC64 backend today.

http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-09/msg00077.html

-Doug

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 2:19 AM, Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 11, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Eggone, NagaJyothi wrote:
>
>> Hi Tristan,
>>
>> You might have missed this request for backport to 2.23 I made last week. If it is not too late, please backport these two patches to the 2.23 branch. The patches are:
>> 1)PR14423 fix -  http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00075.html
>> 2) Btver1 and Btver2 enablement patch
>> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00127.html
>
> Yes, this patch is still on my list.  Thank you for providing the binutils-cvs url.
>
> Tristan.
>

Re: Release 2.23: Ping #2

[Tristan Gingold]

On Sep 13, 2012, at 5:39 AM, Doug Kwan (關振德) wrote:

> Hi Tristan,
> 
>    Is it okay to include this? I just fixed a bug in the PPC64 backend today.
> 
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-09/msg00077.html

Yes.  Would you do it ?

Tristan.

> 
> -Doug
> 
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 2:19 AM, Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Sep 11, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Eggone, NagaJyothi wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Tristan,
>>> 
>>> You might have missed this request for backport to 2.23 I made last week. If it is not too late, please backport these two patches to the 2.23 branch. The patches are:
>>> 1)PR14423 fix -  http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00075.html
>>> 2) Btver1 and Btver2 enablement patch
>>> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00127.html
>> 
>> Yes, this patch is still on my list.  Thank you for providing the binutils-cvs url.
>> 
>> Tristan.
>> 

Re: Release 2.23: Ping #2

[Doug Kwan (關振德)]

I just checked in the patch.

http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-09/msg00081.html

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 13, 2012, at 5:39 AM, Doug Kwan (關振德) wrote:
>
>> Hi Tristan,
>>
>>    Is it okay to include this? I just fixed a bug in the PPC64 backend today.
>>
>> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-09/msg00077.html
>
> Yes.  Would you do it ?
>
> Tristan.
>
>>
>> -Doug
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 2:19 AM, Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 11, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Eggone, NagaJyothi wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Tristan,
>>>>
>>>> You might have missed this request for backport to 2.23 I made last week. If it is not too late, please backport these two patches to the 2.23 branch. The patches are:
>>>> 1)PR14423 fix -  http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00075.html
>>>> 2) Btver1 and Btver2 enablement patch
>>>> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00127.html
>>>
>>> Yes, this patch is still on my list.  Thank you for providing the binutils-cvs url.
>>>
>>> Tristan.
>>>
>

Re: Release 2.23: Ping #2

[Tristan Gingold]

On Sep 11, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Eggone, NagaJyothi wrote:

> Hi Tristan,
> 
> You might have missed this request for backport to 2.23 I made last week. If it is not too late, please backport these two patches to the 2.23 branch. The patches are:
> 1)PR14423 fix -  http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00075.html
> 2) Btver1 and Btver2 enablement patch
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00127.html

Now committed on the branch.

Tristan.

RE: Release 2.23: Ping #2

[Eggone, NagaJyothi]

Hi Tristan,
  Please backport following patches to 2.23 branch:
1)PR14423 fix -  http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00075.html
2) Btver1 and Btver2 enablement patch
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00127.html


Regards,
Saravanan
Nagajyothi


-----Original Message-----
From: binutils-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:binutils-owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Tristan Gingold
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 2:32 PM
To: binutils Development
Subject: Release 2.23: Ping #2

I think all the patches that were requested have been backported to the 2.23 branch.  If I missed a patch, please tell me ASAP.
If you have a new backport request, please tell us ASAP too.

Ideally, I'd like to be in a state where I can do the release at anytime before Friday.

Thanks,
Tristan.

Release 2.23

[Tristan Gingold]

Hi,

I was rather busy before the summer and hence I didn't take the time to create a 2.22.1 release.
I can however schedule a release for this summer.  So my plan is:

* I will create the 2.23 branch this week and creating a pre-release just after.

* I plan to do the 2.23 release at the end of August or at the beginning of September (unless there is a blocking issue).

So, if you have big or large changes, it would be nice to wait a little bit.  And as usual, do not hesitate to test your favourite platforms.

Tristan.

Re: Release 2.23

[Matthias Klose]

On 23.07.2012 14:40, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I was rather busy before the summer and hence I didn't take the time to create a 2.22.1 release.
> I can however schedule a release for this summer.  So my plan is:
> 
> * I will create the 2.23 branch this week and creating a pre-release just after.
> 
> * I plan to do the 2.23 release at the end of August or at the beginning of September (unless there is a blocking issue).
> 
> So, if you have big or large changes, it would be nice to wait a little bit.  And as usual, do not hesitate to test your favourite platforms.

what are the chances to get the recently submitted aarch64 target backported to
the branch once it is accepted for the trunk?

  Matthias

Re: Release 2.23

[Tristan Gingold]

On Jul 31, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:

> On 23.07.2012 14:40, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I was rather busy before the summer and hence I didn't take the time to create a 2.22.1 release.
>> I can however schedule a release for this summer.  So my plan is:
>> 
>> * I will create the 2.23 branch this week and creating a pre-release just after.
>> 
>> * I plan to do the 2.23 release at the end of August or at the beginning of September (unless there is a blocking issue).
>> 
>> So, if you have big or large changes, it would be nice to wait a little bit.  And as usual, do not hesitate to test your favourite platforms.
> 
> what are the chances to get the recently submitted aarch64 target backported to
> the branch once it is accepted for the trunk?

Looks like some of you would like to have aarch64 in 2.23.
As it might change the schedule, I'd like to understand the reasons for having aarch64 in 2.23

Tristan.

Re: Release 2.23

[Richard Earnshaw]

On 01/08/12 14:58, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> 
> On Jul 31, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> 
>> On 23.07.2012 14:40, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I was rather busy before the summer and hence I didn't take the time to create a 2.22.1 release.
>>> I can however schedule a release for this summer.  So my plan is:
>>>
>>> * I will create the 2.23 branch this week and creating a pre-release just after.
>>>
>>> * I plan to do the 2.23 release at the end of August or at the beginning of September (unless there is a blocking issue).
>>>
>>> So, if you have big or large changes, it would be nice to wait a little bit.  And as usual, do not hesitate to test your favourite platforms.
>>
>> what are the chances to get the recently submitted aarch64 target backported to
>> the branch once it is accepted for the trunk?
> 
> Looks like some of you would like to have aarch64 in 2.23.
> As it might change the schedule, I'd like to understand the reasons for having aarch64 in 2.23
> 
> Tristan.
> 

Because binutils is a key enabler and rolling this out into various
distros is significantly harder if it isn't in a major release.  In
particular we're targetting GCC-4.8 for the main compiler support and
that needs a binutils that supports it.

Why are we planning a binutils release so much earlier this year than we
have done for the previous 3 or 4 years (at least)?

R.

Re: Release 2.23

[Tristan Gingold]

On Aug 1, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> As it might change the schedule, I'd like to understand the reasons for having aarch64 in 2.23

> Because binutils is a key enabler and rolling this out into various
> distros is significantly harder if it isn't in a major release.  In
> particular we're targetting GCC-4.8 for the main compiler support and
> that needs a binutils that supports it.

Looks like a good rational, but this opens other possibilities:

* would it be acceptable to add aarch64 only in 2.23.1 (in case the submission takes time) ?

* if aarch64 comes only with 2.24, what would be the ideal schedule for the release ?

> Why are we planning a binutils release so much earlier this year than we
> have done for the previous 3 or 4 years (at least)?

I plan a release when the trunk is relatively quiet and when I have enough time for it.

Traditionally, the major release is planed for end of summer but we often slip a while :-)

Tristan.

Re: Release 2.23

[Richard Earnshaw]

On 01/08/12 15:35, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> 
> On Aug 1, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>> As it might change the schedule, I'd like to understand the reasons for having aarch64 in 2.23
> 
>> Because binutils is a key enabler and rolling this out into various
>> distros is significantly harder if it isn't in a major release.  In
>> particular we're targetting GCC-4.8 for the main compiler support and
>> that needs a binutils that supports it.
> 
> Looks like a good rational, but this opens other possibilities:
> 
> * would it be acceptable to add aarch64 only in 2.23.1 (in case the submission takes time) ?

Perhaps, if we can guarantee that it's timely enough.

> 
> * if aarch64 comes only with 2.24, what would be the ideal schedule for the release ?
> 

November :-)

>> Why are we planning a binutils release so much earlier this year than we
>> have done for the previous 3 or 4 years (at least)?
> 
> I plan a release when the trunk is relatively quiet and when I have enough time for it.
> 
> Traditionally, the major release is planed for end of summer but we often slip a while :-)

So why not this time? ;-)

Looking at the review feedback so far, there's very little that we
wouldn't expect to address before the end of August.

R.

Re: Release 2.23

[Tristan Gingold]

On Aug 1, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> 
> Looking at the review feedback so far, there's very little that we
> wouldn't expect to address before the end of August.

Great.  So I still plan the 2.23 release for end of August.  If aarch64 can go in the trunk before end of August, please backport it to the release branch.  Otherwise, we will review the release plan.

I will be away until August 20, so I let maintainer decide wether any backport is appropriate or not.

Tristan.

Release 2.23: Ping

[Tristan Gingold]

Hi,

as far as I understand, aarch64 was committed in the 2.23 branch.  I'd like to thanks for doing this timely.

Is there any patch that need to be in the 2.23 release ?  Please, reply quickly as I'd like to do the release soon.

Thanks in advance,
Tristan.

Release 2.23: Ping #2

[Tristan Gingold]

I think all the patches that were requested have been backported to the 2.23 branch.  If I missed a patch, please tell me ASAP.
If you have a new backport request, please tell us ASAP too.

Ideally, I'd like to be in a state where I can do the release at anytime before Friday.

Thanks,
Tristan.

Re: Release 2.23: Ping #2

[Alan Modra]

On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 11:01:49AM +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> I think all the patches that were requested have been backported to the 2.23 branch.  If I missed a patch, please tell me ASAP.
> If you have a new backport request, please tell us ASAP too.

I decided to put my pr14464 fix for ppc64 onto the branch.  It's one
of those bugs that probably doesn't affect too many people so I hadn't
bothered to commit the fix there.  OTOH, the fix ought to be quite
safe.  If you have already begun the release process, I'm not fussed
if this fix didn't make it into the release.

-- 
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM

Re: Release 2.23: Ping #2

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> If you have a new backport request, please tell us ASAP too.

In <http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-09/msg00101.html> I
mentioned
<http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-09/msg00008.html> but
got the description wrong; that was for a SEGV on a .section
directive.  The "FAIL: gas/mmix/fb-2" patch is in
<http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-08/msg00243.html>.

Ok for 2.23?

> Ideally, I'd like to be in a state where I can do the release
> at anytime before Friday.

Oops.  But it hasn't happened yet AFAICT, so here we go.

brgds, H-P