* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
@ 2012-08-31 22:01 Jeff Sheldon
2012-09-03 7:46 ` Tristan Gingold
0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Sheldon @ 2012-08-31 22:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: binutils
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> 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.
If commits are made to master after 2.3 is released, will they be
allowed to go into 2.3.1 or is that reserved strictly for fixes (while
new commits work towards 2.4)?
-Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-08-31 22:01 Release 2.23: Ping Jeff Sheldon
@ 2012-09-03 7:46 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-04 1:57 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Tristan Gingold @ 2012-09-03 7:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Sheldon; +Cc: binutils
On Aug 31, 2012, at 10:56 PM, Jeff Sheldon wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>> 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.
>
> If commits are made to master after 2.3 is released, will they be
> allowed to go into 2.3.1 or is that reserved strictly for fixes (while
> new commits work towards 2.4)?
Note that the version is 2.23
Backport commits are reserved for fixes, but there are always some exceptions...
Tristan.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-03 7:46 ` Tristan Gingold
@ 2012-09-04 1:57 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2012-09-04 2:51 ` Alan Modra
0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson @ 2012-09-04 1:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tristan Gingold; +Cc: binutils
On Mon, 3 Sep 2012, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Note that the version is 2.23
Speaking of the version number, bugzilla needs to be updated:
The "Version" field has a choice "2.23 (HEAD)" but no "2.24
(HEAD)" nor "2.23". Maybe updating bugzilla is a later step in
the release process, but as the branch has been created, I don't
think "2.23 (HEAD)" is valid.
Judging from the gcc bugzilla: "Administration" -> "Products"
-> "binutils" [product choice] -> "Edit versions" should set you
on the right track. I don't have admin rights in the sourceware
bugzilla so I don't see as far as "Administration" so I'm not
completely sure.
brgds, H-P
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-04 1:57 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
@ 2012-09-04 2:51 ` Alan Modra
0 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Alan Modra @ 2012-09-04 2:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hans-Peter Nilsson; +Cc: Tristan Gingold, binutils
On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 09:56:45PM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2012, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > Note that the version is 2.23
>
> Speaking of the version number, bugzilla needs to be updated:
> The "Version" field has a choice "2.23 (HEAD)" but no "2.24
> (HEAD)" nor "2.23".
Fixed.
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-06 7:14 ` Tristan Gingold
@ 2012-09-18 14:47 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
0 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Maciej W. Rozycki @ 2012-09-18 14:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tristan Gingold; +Cc: binutils Development
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > The fix will be a one-liner plus a corresponding test suite update and
> > will apply both to trunk and 2.23. I'll push it through testing now and
> > will have it ready tomorrow. I hope this is going to be acceptable.
>
> Sure. Can you please do the backport ?
FAOD I did that now. I have now more MIPS bug-fixing stuff coming along,
but none I consider critical enough for 2.23, so the release is clear to
go as far as I am concerned. Thanks for your patience.
Maciej
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-14 17:05 ` Matthias Klose
@ 2012-09-18 14:44 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
0 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Maciej W. Rozycki @ 2012-09-18 14:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matthias Klose; +Cc: Tristan Gingold, binutils Development
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > That's certainly a blocking issue. Is this regression only on the
> > 2.23 branch and not in the trunk ?
>
> this turned out as an unrelated issue. Now afk, will follow-up tomorrow.
OK, thanks, I saw you'd found the culprit in your bug tracker.
Maciej
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-14 8:21 ` Tristan Gingold
@ 2012-09-14 17:05 ` Matthias Klose
2012-09-18 14:44 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Matthias Klose @ 2012-09-14 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tristan Gingold; +Cc: Maciej W. Rozycki, binutils Development
On 14.09.2012 10:21, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
> On Sep 13, 2012, at 7:32 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
>> On 04.09.2012 18:31, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>>> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>> Thanks a lot indeed! I'll just regression-test it against my latest
>>> trunk results and see if anything pops up. I'll let you know the outcome
>>> by tomorrow.
>>
>> this did break linux kernel builds (at least in 3.5.0), on x86_64-linux-gnu.
>> Reverting Tristan's checkin (git 754bb8efffca0d3006e417ba56b92bec9990753d) of
>> the mips backports to the 2.23 branch solves the issue. The patch touches
>> generic files in bfd and ld. I didn't check, if it's a binutils issue or a
>> kernel issue exposed by this change.
>
> That's certainly a blocking issue. Is this regression only on the 2.23 branch and not in the trunk ?
this turned out as an unrelated issue. Now afk, will follow-up tomorrow.
Matthias
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-13 17:36 ` Matthias Klose
2012-09-13 18:13 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
@ 2012-09-14 8:21 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-14 17:05 ` Matthias Klose
1 sibling, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Tristan Gingold @ 2012-09-14 8:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matthias Klose; +Cc: Maciej W. Rozycki, binutils Development
On Sep 13, 2012, at 7:32 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 04.09.2012 18:31, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>> Thanks a lot indeed! I'll just regression-test it against my latest
>> trunk results and see if anything pops up. I'll let you know the outcome
>> by tomorrow.
>
> this did break linux kernel builds (at least in 3.5.0), on x86_64-linux-gnu.
> Reverting Tristan's checkin (git 754bb8efffca0d3006e417ba56b92bec9990753d) of
> the mips backports to the 2.23 branch solves the issue. The patch touches
> generic files in bfd and ld. I didn't check, if it's a binutils issue or a
> kernel issue exposed by this change.
That's certainly a blocking issue. Is this regression only on the 2.23 branch and not in the trunk ?
Tristan.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-13 18:13 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
@ 2012-09-14 6:58 ` Alan Modra
0 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Alan Modra @ 2012-09-14 6:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Maciej W. Rozycki; +Cc: Matthias Klose, Tristan Gingold, binutils Development
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 07:13:18PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > From https://launchpad.net/bugs/1049650
> >
> > """
> > $ readelf -s setup.elf | grep video_card
> > 138: 00003660 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT 12 video_cards
> > 151: 00003660 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT 12 video_cards_end
I doubt that Maciej's changes have anything to do with this problem.
If you link setup.elf with "-Map somefile" does the map show any input
sections being linked between the script lines setting these symbols?
Something like the following should be there:
.videocards 0x0000000000003bc4 0x54
0x0000000000003bc4 video_cards = .
*(.videocards)
.videocards 0x0000000000003bc4 0x1c arch/x86/boot/video-vga.o
.videocards 0x0000000000003be0 0x1c arch/x86/boot/video-vesa.o
.videocards 0x0000000000003bfc 0x1c arch/x86/boot/video-bios.o
0x0000000000003c18 video_cards_end = .
0x0000000000003c20 . = ALIGN (0x10)
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-13 17:36 ` Matthias Klose
@ 2012-09-13 18:13 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-14 6:58 ` Alan Modra
2012-09-14 8:21 ` Tristan Gingold
1 sibling, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Maciej W. Rozycki @ 2012-09-13 18:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matthias Klose; +Cc: Tristan Gingold, binutils Development
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Thanks a lot indeed! I'll just regression-test it against my latest
> > trunk results and see if anything pops up. I'll let you know the outcome
> > by tomorrow.
>
> this did break linux kernel builds (at least in 3.5.0), on x86_64-linux-gnu.
> Reverting Tristan's checkin (git 754bb8efffca0d3006e417ba56b92bec9990753d) of
> the mips backports to the 2.23 branch solves the issue. The patch touches
> generic files in bfd and ld. I didn't check, if it's a binutils issue or a
> kernel issue exposed by this change.
Some changes were indeed generic, specifically the symbol export class
BFD bug fix. The bug affected all targets, however Linux shouldn't care
as export classes are used in dynamic linking only.
There were also non-MIPS changes to ld that were supposed to be
transparent; they mainly affected symbols defined by linker scripts and
caused no test suite regressions -- but then that's a feature used quite
heavily by Linux. If anything was indeed missed, then it would be a
worthwhile addition to the test suite alongside the fix.
> From https://launchpad.net/bugs/1049650
>
> """
> $ readelf -s setup.elf | grep video_card
> 138: 00003660 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT 12 video_cards
> 151: 00003660 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT 12 video_cards_end
>
> We should see some space between video_cards and video_cards_end, and the fact
> that we don't means the kernel isn't going to find any options for video.
> """
Thanks for the reference. Can you please give me some instructions as to
how to build a kernel that has this problem, e.g. will some defconfig and
a kernel.org tree be enough to reproduce that? I'll have a look into it,
but please forgive my lack of knowledge on the recipes Ubuntu developers
use. Thanks.
Also would you per any chance be willing to help and try binutils trunk
to track down the specific change that caused this problem? The backport
was made in bulk while on trunk self-contained changes were applied
individually. That would make tracking down the culprit much much easier.
Maciej
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-04 16:31 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-05 0:56 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
@ 2012-09-13 17:36 ` Matthias Klose
2012-09-13 18:13 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-14 8:21 ` Tristan Gingold
1 sibling, 2 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Matthias Klose @ 2012-09-13 17:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Maciej W. Rozycki; +Cc: Tristan Gingold, binutils Development
On 04.09.2012 18:31, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Thanks a lot indeed! I'll just regression-test it against my latest
> trunk results and see if anything pops up. I'll let you know the outcome
> by tomorrow.
this did break linux kernel builds (at least in 3.5.0), on x86_64-linux-gnu.
Reverting Tristan's checkin (git 754bb8efffca0d3006e417ba56b92bec9990753d) of
the mips backports to the 2.23 branch solves the issue. The patch touches
generic files in bfd and ld. I didn't check, if it's a binutils issue or a
kernel issue exposed by this change.
Matthias
From https://launchpad.net/bugs/1049650
"""
$ readelf -s setup.elf | grep video_card
138: 00003660 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT 12 video_cards
151: 00003660 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT 12 video_cards_end
We should see some space between video_cards and video_cards_end, and the fact
that we don't means the kernel isn't going to find any options for video.
"""
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-05 20:48 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
@ 2012-09-06 7:14 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-18 14:47 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Tristan Gingold @ 2012-09-06 7:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Maciej W. Rozycki; +Cc: binutils Development
On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:48 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>
>> None of these appears related to my changes. I have also diffed 2.23
>> against current trunk and everything looks in order, so the release is
>> free to go as far as I am concerned (of course someone else might want to
>> look into these regressions above).
>
> I have to take it back unfortunately, an incorrect encoding of a
> microMIPS instruction has just been found in the opcode table -- which I
> consider a serious problem.
Understood.
> The fix will be a one-liner plus a corresponding test suite update and
> will apply both to trunk and 2.23. I'll push it through testing now and
> will have it ready tomorrow. I hope this is going to be acceptable.
Sure. Can you please do the backport ?
Tristan.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-05 0:56 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-05 8:54 ` Matthew Gretton-Dann
@ 2012-09-05 20:48 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-06 7:14 ` Tristan Gingold
1 sibling, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Maciej W. Rozycki @ 2012-09-05 20:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tristan Gingold; +Cc: binutils Development
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> None of these appears related to my changes. I have also diffed 2.23
> against current trunk and everything looks in order, so the release is
> free to go as far as I am concerned (of course someone else might want to
> look into these regressions above).
I have to take it back unfortunately, an incorrect encoding of a
microMIPS instruction has just been found in the opcode table -- which I
consider a serious problem.
The fix will be a one-liner plus a corresponding test suite update and
will apply both to trunk and 2.23. I'll push it through testing now and
will have it ready tomorrow. I hope this is going to be acceptable.
Maciej
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-05 12:02 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
@ 2012-09-05 16:50 ` Richard Earnshaw
0 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Richard Earnshaw @ 2012-09-05 16:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Maciej W. Rozycki
Cc: Matthew Gretton-Dann, Tristan Gingold, binutils Development
On 05/09/12 13:02, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Matthew Gretton-Dann wrote:
>
>> I don't think they should necessarily hold up the release though as
>> the EABI targets (arm-none-eabi, arm-none-linux-gnueabi) all pass
>> these tests for me.
>>
>> Maciej, Did you run any ARM EABI variants?
>
> Here's the exact list of ARM targets included in my testing:
>
> arm-aout arm-coff arm-epoc-pe arm-linuxeabi arm-netbsdelf arm-nto arm-pe
> arm-symbianelf arm-vxworks arm-wince-pe
>
> -- I took it from Alan's selection and did not add anything myself. I
> hope this helps.
>
> Maciej
>
>
>
We should just kill arm-aout. Surely nothing in the last 10 years has
used it :-)
R.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-05 8:54 ` Matthew Gretton-Dann
2012-09-05 9:04 ` Tristan Gingold
@ 2012-09-05 12:02 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-05 16:50 ` Richard Earnshaw
1 sibling, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Maciej W. Rozycki @ 2012-09-05 12:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matthew Gretton-Dann; +Cc: Tristan Gingold, binutils Development
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Matthew Gretton-Dann wrote:
> I don't think they should necessarily hold up the release though as
> the EABI targets (arm-none-eabi, arm-none-linux-gnueabi) all pass
> these tests for me.
>
> Maciej, Did you run any ARM EABI variants?
Here's the exact list of ARM targets included in my testing:
arm-aout arm-coff arm-epoc-pe arm-linuxeabi arm-netbsdelf arm-nto arm-pe
arm-symbianelf arm-vxworks arm-wince-pe
-- I took it from Alan's selection and did not add anything myself. I
hope this helps.
Maciej
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-05 9:04 ` Tristan Gingold
@ 2012-09-05 10:59 ` Matthew Gretton-Dann
0 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Gretton-Dann @ 2012-09-05 10:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tristan Gingold; +Cc: Maciej W. Rozycki, binutils Development
On 5 September 2012 10:04, Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Matthew Gretton-Dann wrote:
>
>> On 5 September 2012 01:56, Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's the resulting list of regressions:
>>>
>>> arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
>>> arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
>>> arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
>>> arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (ARM)
>>> arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
>>> arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-a
>>> arm-coff +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
>>> arm-coff +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
>>> arm-coff +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
>>> arm-coff +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
>>> arm-epoc-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
>>> arm-epoc-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
>>> arm-epoc-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
>>> arm-epoc-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
>>> arm-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
>>> arm-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
>>> arm-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
>>> arm-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
>>> arm-wince-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
>>> arm-wince-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
>>> arm-wince-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
>>> arm-wince-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
>>
>> I'll take a look at these.
>>
>> I don't think they should necessarily hold up the release though as
>> the EABI targets (arm-none-eabi, arm-none-linux-gnueabi) all pass
>> these tests for me.
>
> Fine.
>
> As always, it would be nice to have clean regression output. Thank you for working to that!
>
> OTOH, these regressions look to be aarch64/armv8 specific, so aren't real regression compared to 2.22 IIUC.
You are correct - these are not new regressions as these are new tests
in 2.23.
Substantial numbers of arm*-*-* tests fail already for non-EABI
targets, for what looks like similar reasons to why this new crop of
tests fail. Which is that the testcases make implicit assumptions
that are true for EABI targets but aren't necessarily true for other
targets.
Whilst the simple solution would be to mark the tests unsupported for
non-EABI targets this strikes me as being the easy way out, and wrong
as I think these tests should be valid on all arm*-*-* targets.
I will put this on my list of things to look at further, but it is not
going to be high priority - and it certainly shouldn't (in my opinion)
block the binutils 2.23 release.
Thanks,
Matt
--
Matthew Gretton-Dann
Linaro Toolchain Working Group
matthew.gretton-dann@linaro.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-05 8:54 ` Matthew Gretton-Dann
@ 2012-09-05 9:04 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-05 10:59 ` Matthew Gretton-Dann
2012-09-05 12:02 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
1 sibling, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Tristan Gingold @ 2012-09-05 9:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matthew Gretton-Dann; +Cc: Maciej W. Rozycki, binutils Development
On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Matthew Gretton-Dann wrote:
> On 5 September 2012 01:56, Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>>
>> Here's the resulting list of regressions:
>>
>> arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
>> arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
>> arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
>> arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (ARM)
>> arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
>> arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-a
>> arm-coff +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
>> arm-coff +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
>> arm-coff +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
>> arm-coff +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
>> arm-epoc-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
>> arm-epoc-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
>> arm-epoc-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
>> arm-epoc-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
>> arm-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
>> arm-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
>> arm-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
>> arm-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
>> arm-wince-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
>> arm-wince-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
>> arm-wince-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
>> arm-wince-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
>
> I'll take a look at these.
>
> I don't think they should necessarily hold up the release though as
> the EABI targets (arm-none-eabi, arm-none-linux-gnueabi) all pass
> these tests for me.
Fine.
As always, it would be nice to have clean regression output. Thank you for working to that!
OTOH, these regressions look to be aarch64/armv8 specific, so aren't real regression compared to 2.22 IIUC.
Tristan.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-05 0:56 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
@ 2012-09-05 8:54 ` Matthew Gretton-Dann
2012-09-05 9:04 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-05 12:02 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-05 20:48 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
1 sibling, 2 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Gretton-Dann @ 2012-09-05 8:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Maciej W. Rozycki; +Cc: Tristan Gingold, binutils Development
On 5 September 2012 01:56, Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>
> Here's the resulting list of regressions:
>
> arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
> arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
> arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
> arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (ARM)
> arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
> arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-a
> arm-coff +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
> arm-coff +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
> arm-coff +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
> arm-coff +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
> arm-epoc-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
> arm-epoc-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
> arm-epoc-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
> arm-epoc-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
> arm-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
> arm-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
> arm-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
> arm-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
> arm-wince-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
> arm-wince-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
> arm-wince-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
> arm-wince-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
I'll take a look at these.
I don't think they should necessarily hold up the release though as
the EABI targets (arm-none-eabi, arm-none-linux-gnueabi) all pass
these tests for me.
Maciej, Did you run any ARM EABI variants?
Thanks,
Matt
--
Matthew Gretton-Dann
Linaro Toolchain Working Group
matthew.gretton-dann@linaro.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-04 16:31 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
@ 2012-09-05 0:56 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-05 8:54 ` Matthew Gretton-Dann
2012-09-05 20:48 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-13 17:36 ` Matthias Klose
1 sibling, 2 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Maciej W. Rozycki @ 2012-09-05 0:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tristan Gingold; +Cc: binutils Development
On Tue, 4 Sep 2012, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> Thanks a lot indeed! I'll just regression-test it against my latest
> trunk results and see if anything pops up. I'll let you know the outcome
> by tomorrow.
Here's the resulting list of regressions:
arc-elf +FAIL: ld-elf/pr14156c
arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (ARM)
arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
arm-aout +FAIL: Valid v8-a
arm-coff +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
arm-coff +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
arm-coff +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
arm-coff +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
arm-epoc-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
arm-epoc-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
arm-epoc-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
arm-epoc-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
arm-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
arm-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
arm-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
arm-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
arm-wince-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
arm-wince-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
arm-wince-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
arm-wince-pe +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
d30v-elf +FAIL: d30v bittest
d30v-elf +FAIL: ld-elf/pr14156c
dlx-elf +FAIL: ld-elf/pr14156c
hppa64-hp-hpux11.23 +FAIL: ld-elf/pr14156a
hppa64-hp-hpux11.23 +FAIL: ld-elf/pr14156b
hppa64-hp-hpux11.23 +FAIL: ld-elf/pr14156c
i386-linuxaout +FAIL: i386 RdSeed (Intel disassembly)
i586-aout +FAIL: i386 RdSeed (Intel disassembly)
i586-coff +FAIL: i386 RdSeed (Intel disassembly)
i686-pe +FAIL: i386 RdSeed (Intel disassembly)
i960-elf +FAIL: ld-elf/pr14156c
ia64-hpux +FAIL: ia64 psn
or32-elf +FAIL: ld-elf/pr14156c
pj-elf +FAIL: ld-elf/pr14156c
x86_64-mingw32 +FAIL: i386 RdSeed (Intel disassembly)
None of these appears related to my changes. I have also diffed 2.23
against current trunk and everything looks in order, so the release is
free to go as far as I am concerned (of course someone else might want to
look into these regressions above).
Thanks for your assistance and your effort with making the release.
Maciej
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-04 14:45 ` Tristan Gingold
@ 2012-09-04 16:31 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-05 0:56 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-13 17:36 ` Matthias Klose
0 siblings, 2 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Maciej W. Rozycki @ 2012-09-04 16:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tristan Gingold; +Cc: binutils Development
On Tue, 4 Sep 2012, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > Hmm, I would like to get included at least these:
> >
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-07/msg00139.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00002.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00006.html
> >
> > (I suggest combining the above three into one; non-MIPS clean-ups from the
> > second can be discarded as far as I'm concerned)
> >
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00027.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00028.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00029.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00030.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00044.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00049.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00050.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00084.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00085.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00091.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00092.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00190.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00191.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00209.html
> >
> > and these would be good to have too:
> >
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00045.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00046.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00047.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00051.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00052.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00069.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00086.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00093.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00106.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00192.html
>
> The whole set has been backported. Feel free to check if I missed
> something :-)
Thanks a lot indeed! I'll just regression-test it against my latest
trunk results and see if anything pops up. I'll let you know the outcome
by tomorrow.
Maciej
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-03 15:07 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-03 15:18 ` Tristan Gingold
@ 2012-09-04 14:45 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-04 16:31 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
1 sibling, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Tristan Gingold @ 2012-09-04 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Maciej W. Rozycki; +Cc: binutils Development
On Sep 3, 2012, at 5:06 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2012, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
>>> Did I miss anything?
>>
>> At least the snapshot announcement:
>>
>>>
>>> I have just created the 2.23 branch and uploded prerelease 2.22.90 at:
>>> ftp://sourceware.org/pub/binutils/snapshots/binutils-2.22.90.tar.bz2
>
> Umm...
>
>> The branch was created in July, so you need to backport all these patches.
>> I can take care of that, providing you sent me the url of the
>> binutils-cvs@ messages.
>
> Hmm, I would like to get included at least these:
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-07/msg00139.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00002.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00006.html
>
> (I suggest combining the above three into one; non-MIPS clean-ups from the
> second can be discarded as far as I'm concerned)
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00027.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00028.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00029.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00030.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00044.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00049.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00050.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00084.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00085.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00091.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00092.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00190.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00191.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00209.html
>
> and these would be good to have too:
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00045.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00046.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00047.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00051.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00052.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00069.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00086.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00093.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00106.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00192.html
The whole set has been backported. Feel free to check if I missed something :-)
Tristan.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-04 14:37 ` Tristan Gingold
@ 2012-09-04 14:39 ` H.J. Lu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 2012-09-04 14:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tristan Gingold; +Cc: Mike Frysinger, binutils Development
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 4, 2012, at 4:31 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:19 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 6:31 AM, Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 4, 2012, at 5:53 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 31, 2012, at 7:44 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> can we get this merged to the branch (it's already in gcc and HEAD):
>>>>>>> PATCH: Don't set HOST_LIB_PATH_bfd/HOST_LIB_PATH_opcodes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you send me the url of the commit mail ? That would help me.
>>>>>
>>>>> sorry; here you go:
>>>>> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-08/msg00451.html
>>>>> -mike (resent to all)
>>>>
>>>> Done.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't see it on 2.23 branch.
>>>
>>
>> Commit didn't show up at
>>
>> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-09/
>>
>> since it doesn't have a commit message.
>
> Not sure why. I was able to find the commit message for the original commit, so I think commits that doesn't affect ld/bfd/opcodes/gas/gold/... aren't send to binutils-cvs.
>
That explains it.
Thanks.
--
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-04 14:31 ` H.J. Lu
@ 2012-09-04 14:37 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-04 14:39 ` H.J. Lu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Tristan Gingold @ 2012-09-04 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H.J. Lu; +Cc: Mike Frysinger, binutils Development
On Sep 4, 2012, at 4:31 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:19 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 6:31 AM, Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 4, 2012, at 5:53 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 31, 2012, at 7:44 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> can we get this merged to the branch (it's already in gcc and HEAD):
>>>>>> PATCH: Don't set HOST_LIB_PATH_bfd/HOST_LIB_PATH_opcodes
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you send me the url of the commit mail ? That would help me.
>>>>
>>>> sorry; here you go:
>>>> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-08/msg00451.html
>>>> -mike (resent to all)
>>>
>>> Done.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't see it on 2.23 branch.
>>
>
> Commit didn't show up at
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-09/
>
> since it doesn't have a commit message.
Not sure why. I was able to find the commit message for the original commit, so I think commits that doesn't affect ld/bfd/opcodes/gas/gold/... aren't send to binutils-cvs.
Tristan.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-04 14:20 ` H.J. Lu
@ 2012-09-04 14:31 ` H.J. Lu
2012-09-04 14:37 ` Tristan Gingold
0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 2012-09-04 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tristan Gingold; +Cc: Mike Frysinger, binutils Development
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:19 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 6:31 AM, Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 4, 2012, at 5:53 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>>> On Aug 31, 2012, at 7:44 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> can we get this merged to the branch (it's already in gcc and HEAD):
>>>>> PATCH: Don't set HOST_LIB_PATH_bfd/HOST_LIB_PATH_opcodes
>>>>
>>>> Can you send me the url of the commit mail ? That would help me.
>>>
>>> sorry; here you go:
>>> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-08/msg00451.html
>>> -mike (resent to all)
>>
>> Done.
>>
>
> I didn't see it on 2.23 branch.
>
Commit didn't show up at
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-09/
since it doesn't have a commit message.
--
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-04 13:31 ` Tristan Gingold
@ 2012-09-04 14:20 ` H.J. Lu
2012-09-04 14:31 ` H.J. Lu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 2012-09-04 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tristan Gingold; +Cc: Mike Frysinger, binutils Development
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 6:31 AM, Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 4, 2012, at 5:53 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>> On Aug 31, 2012, at 7:44 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> can we get this merged to the branch (it's already in gcc and HEAD):
>>>> PATCH: Don't set HOST_LIB_PATH_bfd/HOST_LIB_PATH_opcodes
>>>
>>> Can you send me the url of the commit mail ? That would help me.
>>
>> sorry; here you go:
>> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-08/msg00451.html
>> -mike (resent to all)
>
> Done.
>
I didn't see it on 2.23 branch.
--
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-04 13:42 ` H.J. Lu
2012-09-04 13:51 ` Tristan Gingold
@ 2012-09-04 13:58 ` Tristan Gingold
1 sibling, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Tristan Gingold @ 2012-09-04 13:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H.J. Lu; +Cc: Kirill Yukhin, Sergey G., binutils Development
On Sep 4, 2012, at 3:41 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> We'd like to backport PSN support:
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-08/msg00137.html
>
> which is approved today for mainline.
Done.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-04 13:42 ` H.J. Lu
@ 2012-09-04 13:51 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-04 13:58 ` Tristan Gingold
1 sibling, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Tristan Gingold @ 2012-09-04 13:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H.J. Lu; +Cc: Kirill Yukhin, Sergey G., binutils Development
On Sep 4, 2012, at 3:41 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> We'd like to backport PSN support:
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-08/msg00137.html
>
> which is approved today for mainline.
Sure. I will take care of it.
Tristan.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-08-31 14:40 ` Release 2.23: Ping Tristan Gingold
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2012-09-03 15:09 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
@ 2012-09-04 13:42 ` H.J. Lu
2012-09-04 13:51 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-04 13:58 ` Tristan Gingold
4 siblings, 2 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 2012-09-04 13:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tristan Gingold, Kirill Yukhin, Sergey G.; +Cc: binutils Development
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
We'd like to backport PSN support:
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-08/msg00137.html
which is approved today for mainline.
Thanks.
--
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-03 15:09 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
@ 2012-09-04 13:35 ` Tristan Gingold
0 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Tristan Gingold @ 2012-09-04 13:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Maciej W. Rozycki; +Cc: binutils Development
On Sep 3, 2012, at 5:09 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> Tristan,
>
>> 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.
>
> Here's a critical VAX fix I'd like to see in the release:
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00036.html
Done.
Tristan.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-04 3:54 ` Mike Frysinger
@ 2012-09-04 13:31 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-04 14:20 ` H.J. Lu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Tristan Gingold @ 2012-09-04 13:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike Frysinger; +Cc: H.J. Lu, binutils Development
On Sep 4, 2012, at 5:53 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>> On Aug 31, 2012, at 7:44 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> can we get this merged to the branch (it's already in gcc and HEAD):
>>> PATCH: Don't set HOST_LIB_PATH_bfd/HOST_LIB_PATH_opcodes
>>
>> Can you send me the url of the commit mail ? That would help me.
>
> sorry; here you go:
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-08/msg00451.html
> -mike (resent to all)
Done.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-03 7:51 ` Tristan Gingold
@ 2012-09-04 3:54 ` Mike Frysinger
2012-09-04 13:31 ` Tristan Gingold
0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Mike Frysinger @ 2012-09-04 3:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tristan Gingold; +Cc: H.J. Lu, binutils Development
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2012, at 7:44 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> can we get this merged to the branch (it's already in gcc and HEAD):
>> PATCH: Don't set HOST_LIB_PATH_bfd/HOST_LIB_PATH_opcodes
>
> Can you send me the url of the commit mail ? That would help me.
sorry; here you go:
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-08/msg00451.html
-mike (resent to all)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-03 15:07 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
@ 2012-09-03 15:18 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-04 14:45 ` Tristan Gingold
1 sibling, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Tristan Gingold @ 2012-09-03 15:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Maciej W. Rozycki; +Cc: binutils Development
On Sep 3, 2012, at 5:06 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2012, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
>>> Did I miss anything?
>>
>> At least the snapshot announcement:
>>
>>>
>>> I have just created the 2.23 branch and uploded prerelease 2.22.90 at:
>>> ftp://sourceware.org/pub/binutils/snapshots/binutils-2.22.90.tar.bz2
>
> Umm...
>
>> The branch was created in July, so you need to backport all these patches.
>> I can take care of that, providing you sent me the url of the
>> binutils-cvs@ messages.
>
> Hmm, I would like to get included at least these:
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-07/msg00139.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00002.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00006.html
>
> (I suggest combining the above three into one; non-MIPS clean-ups from the
> second can be discarded as far as I'm concerned)
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00027.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00028.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00029.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00030.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00044.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00049.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00050.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00084.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00085.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00091.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00092.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00190.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00191.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00209.html
>
> and these would be good to have too:
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00045.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00046.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00047.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00051.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00052.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00069.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00086.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00093.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00106.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00192.html
>
> the latters including in particular test suite coverage for some of the
> changes from the first set (unfortunately the dependencies require pulling
> much more than the minimal required set). I've dropped some minor updates
> that I made in that period. Overall I worked on the submissions in the
> first half of August with the explicit intent to have them included in
> 2.23, sigh...
>
> Thanks for your offer WRT applying these -- do you have any way to
> process these messages automatically? Otherwise it might perhaps be
> easier if I replayed the original commits on binutils-2_23-branch from the
> original patches. WDYT?
Wow, that's a long set. I can process them automatically.
Thanks,
Tristan.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-08-31 14:40 ` Release 2.23: Ping Tristan Gingold
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
[not found] ` <alpine.DEB.1.10.1208312249380.12630@tp.orcam.me.uk>
@ 2012-09-03 15:09 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-04 13:35 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-04 13:42 ` H.J. Lu
4 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Maciej W. Rozycki @ 2012-09-03 15:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tristan Gingold; +Cc: binutils Development
Tristan,
> 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.
Here's a critical VAX fix I'd like to see in the release:
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00036.html
Maciej
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-09-03 7:50 ` Tristan Gingold
@ 2012-09-03 15:07 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-03 15:18 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-04 14:45 ` Tristan Gingold
0 siblings, 2 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Maciej W. Rozycki @ 2012-09-03 15:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tristan Gingold; +Cc: binutils Development
On Mon, 3 Sep 2012, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > Did I miss anything?
>
> At least the snapshot announcement:
>
> >
> > I have just created the 2.23 branch and uploded prerelease 2.22.90 at:
> > ftp://sourceware.org/pub/binutils/snapshots/binutils-2.22.90.tar.bz2
Umm...
> The branch was created in July, so you need to backport all these patches.
> I can take care of that, providing you sent me the url of the
> binutils-cvs@ messages.
Hmm, I would like to get included at least these:
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-07/msg00139.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00002.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00006.html
(I suggest combining the above three into one; non-MIPS clean-ups from the
second can be discarded as far as I'm concerned)
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00027.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00028.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00029.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00030.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00044.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00049.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00050.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00084.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00085.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00091.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00092.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00190.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00191.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00209.html
and these would be good to have too:
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00045.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00046.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00047.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00051.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00052.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00069.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00086.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00093.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00106.html
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-08/msg00192.html
the latters including in particular test suite coverage for some of the
changes from the first set (unfortunately the dependencies require pulling
much more than the minimal required set). I've dropped some minor updates
that I made in that period. Overall I worked on the submissions in the
first half of August with the explicit intent to have them included in
2.23, sigh...
Thanks for your offer WRT applying these -- do you have any way to
process these messages automatically? Otherwise it might perhaps be
easier if I replayed the original commits on binutils-2_23-branch from the
original patches. WDYT?
Maciej
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-08-31 18:09 ` Mike Frysinger
@ 2012-09-03 7:51 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-04 3:54 ` Mike Frysinger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Tristan Gingold @ 2012-09-03 7:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike Frysinger; +Cc: H.J. Lu, binutils Development
On Aug 31, 2012, at 7:44 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>> 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.
>
> can we get this merged to the branch (it's already in gcc and HEAD):
> PATCH: Don't set HOST_LIB_PATH_bfd/HOST_LIB_PATH_opcodes
Can you send me the url of the commit mail ? That would help me.
Thanks,
Tristan.
> -mike
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
[not found] ` <alpine.DEB.1.10.1208312249380.12630@tp.orcam.me.uk>
@ 2012-09-03 7:50 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-03 15:07 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Tristan Gingold @ 2012-09-03 7:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Maciej W. Rozycki; +Cc: binutils Development
On Sep 1, 2012, at 12:00 AM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> Tristan,
>
>> as far as I understand, aarch64 was committed in the 2.23 branch. I'd
>> like to thanks for doing this timely.
>
> Has the 2.23 branch been already created?
Yes.
> Did I miss anything?
At least the snapshot announcement:
>
> I have just created the 2.23 branch and uploded prerelease 2.22.90 at:
> ftp://sourceware.org/pub/binutils/snapshots/binutils-2.22.90.tar.bz2
> I'm
> asking seriously -- the list server seems to be playing tricks with me, I
> only received one of the replies to your e-mail in this thread and I had
> to poke at the server to send me the rest as a digest, hmm...
>
>> 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.
>
> Well, if the branch was created before last Tuesday, then I'd like my
> export class bug fixes to be included, specifically these:
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-08/msg00159.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-08/msg00160.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-08/msg00161.html
>
> If it was even before Aug 13th, then I'd like to see all the bug fixes I
> pushed recently between the time the branch was created and now. This
> trivial documentation fix:
>
> 2012-08-31 Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@codesourcery.com>
>
> * doc/c-mips.texi (MIPS Opts): Correct a typo in the -mips5
> option.
>
> would then be the icing on the cake ;) -- we want our user documentation
> to be always perfectly accurate, don't we?
The branch was created in July, so you need to backport all these patches.
I can take care of that, providing you sent me the url of the binutils-cvs@ messages.
Thanks,
Tristan.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-08-31 14:40 ` Release 2.23: Ping Tristan Gingold
2012-08-31 14:46 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2012-08-31 18:09 ` Mike Frysinger
2012-09-03 7:51 ` Tristan Gingold
[not found] ` <alpine.DEB.1.10.1208312249380.12630@tp.orcam.me.uk>
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Mike Frysinger @ 2012-08-31 18:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tristan Gingold, H.J. Lu; +Cc: binutils Development
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> 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.
can we get this merged to the branch (it's already in gcc and HEAD):
PATCH: Don't set HOST_LIB_PATH_bfd/HOST_LIB_PATH_opcodes
-mike
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-08-31 14:46 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2012-08-31 17:45 ` Tristan Gingold
0 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Tristan Gingold @ 2012-08-31 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich; +Cc: H.J. Lu, binutils Development
On Aug 31, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 31.08.12 at 16:34, Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I would generally have hoped for some or all of the x86 gas
> fixes I committed lately to make it in there, but that's clearly
> a decision to be taken between you and H.J.
I let H.J. decides.
> The one that I'd consider most important (and least obvious,
> since not under gas/) is this one:
>
> 2012-07-31 Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>
> * i386-opc.tbl (vmovntdqa): Move up into 256-bit integer AVX2
> instruction group. Mark as requiring AVX2.
> * i386-tbl.h: Re-generate.
Thank you for the quick reply,
Tristan.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
2012-08-31 14:40 ` Release 2.23: Ping Tristan Gingold
@ 2012-08-31 14:46 ` Jan Beulich
2012-08-31 17:45 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-08-31 18:09 ` Mike Frysinger
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2012-08-31 14:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tristan Gingold; +Cc: H.J. Lu, binutils Development
>>> On 31.08.12 at 16:34, Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com> wrote:
> 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.
I would generally have hoped for some or all of the x86 gas
fixes I committed lately to make it in there, but that's clearly
a decision to be taken between you and H.J.
The one that I'd consider most important (and least obvious,
since not under gas/) is this one:
2012-07-31 Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
* i386-opc.tbl (vmovntdqa): Move up into 256-bit integer AVX2
instruction group. Mark as requiring AVX2.
* i386-tbl.h: Re-generate.
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Release 2.23: Ping
2012-08-02 11:41 ` Tristan Gingold
@ 2012-08-31 14:40 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-08-31 14:46 ` Jan Beulich
` (4 more replies)
0 siblings, 5 replies; 40+ messages in thread
From: Tristan Gingold @ 2012-08-31 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: binutils Development
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-09-18 14:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-08-31 22:01 Release 2.23: Ping Jeff Sheldon
2012-09-03 7:46 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-04 1:57 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2012-09-04 2:51 ` Alan Modra
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-07-23 12:41 Release 2.23 Tristan Gingold
2012-07-31 20:30 ` Matthias Klose
2012-08-01 13:59 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-08-01 14:03 ` Richard Earnshaw
2012-08-01 14:35 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-08-01 14:40 ` Richard Earnshaw
2012-08-02 11:41 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-08-31 14:40 ` Release 2.23: Ping Tristan Gingold
2012-08-31 14:46 ` Jan Beulich
2012-08-31 17:45 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-08-31 18:09 ` Mike Frysinger
2012-09-03 7:51 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-04 3:54 ` Mike Frysinger
2012-09-04 13:31 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-04 14:20 ` H.J. Lu
2012-09-04 14:31 ` H.J. Lu
2012-09-04 14:37 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-04 14:39 ` H.J. Lu
[not found] ` <alpine.DEB.1.10.1208312249380.12630@tp.orcam.me.uk>
2012-09-03 7:50 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-03 15:07 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-03 15:18 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-04 14:45 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-04 16:31 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-05 0:56 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-05 8:54 ` Matthew Gretton-Dann
2012-09-05 9:04 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-05 10:59 ` Matthew Gretton-Dann
2012-09-05 12:02 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-05 16:50 ` Richard Earnshaw
2012-09-05 20:48 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-06 7:14 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-18 14:47 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-13 17:36 ` Matthias Klose
2012-09-13 18:13 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-14 6:58 ` Alan Modra
2012-09-14 8:21 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-14 17:05 ` Matthias Klose
2012-09-18 14:44 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-03 15:09 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-04 13:35 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-04 13:42 ` H.J. Lu
2012-09-04 13:51 ` Tristan Gingold
2012-09-04 13:58 ` Tristan Gingold
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).