* Release 2.23 @ 2012-07-23 12:41 Tristan Gingold 2012-07-31 20:30 ` Matthias Klose ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Tristan Gingold @ 2012-07-23 12:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: binutils Development 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23 2012-07-23 12:41 Release 2.23 Tristan Gingold @ 2012-07-31 20:30 ` Matthias Klose 2012-08-01 8:54 ` Richard Earnshaw 2012-08-01 13:59 ` Tristan Gingold 2012-08-01 14:50 ` Maciej W. Rozycki 2012-09-09 14:15 ` Matthias Klose 2 siblings, 2 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Matthias Klose @ 2012-07-31 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tristan Gingold; +Cc: binutils Development, Richard Earnshaw 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23 2012-07-31 20:30 ` Matthias Klose @ 2012-08-01 8:54 ` Richard Earnshaw 2012-08-01 13:59 ` Tristan Gingold 1 sibling, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Richard Earnshaw @ 2012-08-01 8:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthias Klose; +Cc: Tristan Gingold, binutils Development On 31/07/12 21:28, 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? > > Matthias > > > > Doing this in August seems rather early. I thought binutils was normally released around late October. I was certainly hoping we'd get the AArch64 code into 2.23. R. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23 2012-07-31 20:30 ` Matthias Klose 2012-08-01 8:54 ` Richard Earnshaw @ 2012-08-01 13:59 ` Tristan Gingold 2012-08-01 14:03 ` Richard Earnshaw 2012-08-02 8:11 ` nick clifton 1 sibling, 2 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Tristan Gingold @ 2012-08-01 13:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthias Klose, Nick Clifton, Richard Earnshaw Cc: binutils Development, Richard Earnshaw 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23 2012-08-01 13:59 ` Tristan Gingold @ 2012-08-01 14:03 ` Richard Earnshaw 2012-08-01 14:35 ` Tristan Gingold 2012-08-02 8:11 ` nick clifton 1 sibling, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Richard Earnshaw @ 2012-08-01 14:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tristan Gingold; +Cc: Matthias Klose, nickc, binutils Development 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23 2012-08-01 14:03 ` Richard Earnshaw @ 2012-08-01 14:35 ` Tristan Gingold 2012-08-01 14:40 ` Richard Earnshaw 2012-08-01 15:50 ` Release 2.23 Mike Frysinger 0 siblings, 2 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Tristan Gingold @ 2012-08-01 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Earnshaw; +Cc: Matthias Klose, nickc, binutils Development 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23 2012-08-01 14:35 ` Tristan Gingold @ 2012-08-01 14:40 ` Richard Earnshaw 2012-08-02 11:41 ` Tristan Gingold 2012-08-01 15:50 ` Release 2.23 Mike Frysinger 1 sibling, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Richard Earnshaw @ 2012-08-01 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tristan Gingold; +Cc: Matthias Klose, nickc, binutils Development 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23 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 0 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Tristan Gingold @ 2012-08-02 11:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Earnshaw; +Cc: Matthias Klose, nickc, binutils Development 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ 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 ` (5 more replies) 0 siblings, 6 replies; 65+ 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] 65+ 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 ` (4 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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> ` (3 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1208312249380.12630@tp.orcam.me.uk>]
* 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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 2012-09-05 9:02 ` Release 2.23: Ping #2 Tristan Gingold 5 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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 2012-09-05 9:02 ` Release 2.23: Ping #2 Tristan Gingold 5 siblings, 2 replies; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ messages in thread
* Release 2.23: Ping #2 2012-08-31 14:40 ` Release 2.23: Ping Tristan Gingold ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 2012-09-04 13:42 ` H.J. Lu @ 2012-09-05 9:02 ` Tristan Gingold 2012-09-07 3:14 ` Alan Modra ` (2 more replies) 5 siblings, 3 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Tristan Gingold @ 2012-09-05 9:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: binutils Development 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping #2 2012-09-05 9:02 ` Release 2.23: Ping #2 Tristan Gingold @ 2012-09-07 3:14 ` Alan Modra 2012-09-09 17:05 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-09-18 15:51 ` Release 2.23: Ping #3 Tristan Gingold 2 siblings, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Alan Modra @ 2012-09-07 3:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tristan Gingold; +Cc: binutils Development 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping #2 2012-09-05 9:02 ` Release 2.23: Ping #2 Tristan Gingold 2012-09-07 3:14 ` Alan Modra @ 2012-09-09 17:05 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-09-18 15:51 ` Release 2.23: Ping #3 Tristan Gingold 2 siblings, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Hans-Peter Nilsson @ 2012-09-09 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tristan Gingold; +Cc: binutils Development 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Release 2.23: Ping #3 2012-09-05 9:02 ` Release 2.23: Ping #2 Tristan Gingold 2012-09-07 3:14 ` Alan Modra 2012-09-09 17:05 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson @ 2012-09-18 15:51 ` Tristan Gingold 2012-09-18 15:54 ` H.J. Lu 2 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Tristan Gingold @ 2012-09-18 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: binutils Development Quick status: I think that backport requests have been applied, and there is no pending issue. So, this is the last ping. Ideally I'd like to make the release soon (even if the August deadline is well over :-) Tristan. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping #3 2012-09-18 15:51 ` Release 2.23: Ping #3 Tristan Gingold @ 2012-09-18 15:54 ` H.J. Lu 2012-09-19 15:43 ` H.J. Lu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: H.J. Lu @ 2012-09-18 15:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tristan Gingold; +Cc: binutils Development On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com> wrote: > Quick status: I think that backport requests have been applied, and there is no pending issue. > > So, this is the last ping. > > Ideally I'd like to make the release soon (even if the August deadline is well over :-) > This is an old bug: http://www.sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14591 I'd like to get it fixed on mainline and backport it to 2.23. -- H.J. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping #3 2012-09-18 15:54 ` H.J. Lu @ 2012-09-19 15:43 ` H.J. Lu 2012-09-24 12:23 ` Tristan Gingold 0 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: H.J. Lu @ 2012-09-19 15:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tristan Gingold; +Cc: binutils Development On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:53 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com> wrote: >> Quick status: I think that backport requests have been applied, and there is no pending issue. >> >> So, this is the last ping. >> >> Ideally I'd like to make the release soon (even if the August deadline is well over :-) >> > > This is an old bug: > > http://www.sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14591 > > I'd like to get it fixed on mainline and backport it to 2.23. > Here is the cvs url: http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-09/msg00122.html Thanks. -- H.J. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping #3 2012-09-19 15:43 ` H.J. Lu @ 2012-09-24 12:23 ` Tristan Gingold 0 siblings, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Tristan Gingold @ 2012-09-24 12:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: H.J. Lu; +Cc: binutils Development On Sep 19, 2012, at 5:43 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:53 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com> wrote: >>> Quick status: I think that backport requests have been applied, and there is no pending issue. >>> >>> So, this is the last ping. >>> >>> Ideally I'd like to make the release soon (even if the August deadline is well over :-) >>> >> >> This is an old bug: >> >> http://www.sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14591 >> >> I'd like to get it fixed on mainline and backport it to 2.23. >> > > Here is the cvs url: > > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2012-09/msg00122.html Committed. Tristan. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23 2012-08-01 14:35 ` Tristan Gingold 2012-08-01 14:40 ` Richard Earnshaw @ 2012-08-01 15:50 ` Mike Frysinger 1 sibling, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Mike Frysinger @ 2012-08-01 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: binutils; +Cc: Tristan Gingold, Richard Earnshaw, Matthias Klose, nickc [-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 800 bytes --] On Wednesday 01 August 2012 10:35:11 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) ? that'd be my preference -- let's get 2.23 now, and when aarch64 is finally done & merged, we can do a 2.23.1 follow up -mike [-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23 2012-08-01 13:59 ` Tristan Gingold 2012-08-01 14:03 ` Richard Earnshaw @ 2012-08-02 8:11 ` nick clifton 1 sibling, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: nick clifton @ 2012-08-02 8:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tristan Gingold Cc: Matthias Klose, Richard Earnshaw, binutils Development, Richard Earnshaw Hi Tristan, > 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 I would like to see the aarch64 port in 2.23 so that it can accompany the next gcc release (4.8) which is almost certain to include the gcc aarch64 port. Cheers Nick ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23 2012-07-23 12:41 Release 2.23 Tristan Gingold 2012-07-31 20:30 ` Matthias Klose @ 2012-08-01 14:50 ` Maciej W. Rozycki 2012-09-09 14:15 ` Matthias Klose 2 siblings, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Maciej W. Rozycki @ 2012-08-01 14:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tristan Gingold; +Cc: binutils Tristan, FYI, I've got quite a bunch of bug fixes I'd like to push before the upcoming release, some of which affect all targets. I hope to get them all posted by the end of this week, but as usually with such pieces something may pop up unexpectedly at the last moment in final testing so this may slip. Maciej ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23 2012-07-23 12:41 Release 2.23 Tristan Gingold 2012-07-31 20:30 ` Matthias Klose 2012-08-01 14:50 ` Maciej W. Rozycki @ 2012-09-09 14:15 ` Matthias Klose 2012-09-09 14:48 ` Alan Modra 2012-09-10 7:48 ` Tristan Gingold 2 siblings, 2 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Matthias Klose @ 2012-09-09 14:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tristan Gingold; +Cc: binutils Development [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1015 bytes --] one more change which should go the trunk and the branch. currently the builds on kfreebsd are broken, In file included from ../../bfd/sysdep.h:30:0, from ../../bfd/archures.c:24: ./config.h:7:4: error: #error config.h must be #included before system headers make[5]: *** [archive.lo] Error 1 this is because gcc for kfreebsd defines the __GLIBC__ macro in gcc/config/kfreebsd-gnu.h: #define GNU_USER_TARGET_OS_CPP_BUILTINS() \ do \ { \ builtin_define ("__FreeBSD_kernel__"); \ builtin_define ("__GLIBC__"); \ builtin_define_std ("unix"); \ builtin_assert ("system=unix"); \ builtin_assert ("system=posix"); \ } \ while (0) a quick fix for this is to disable this safety check on kfreebsd by checking that the __FreeBSD_kernel__ macro isn't defined. Matthias [-- Attachment #2: kfreebsd-buildfix.diff --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2687 bytes --] --- binutils-2.22.90.20120907.orig/bfd/config.in +++ binutils-2.22.90.20120907/bfd/config.in @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ /* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers #endif #define __CONFIG_H__ 1 --- binutils-2.22.90.20120907.orig/gas/config.in +++ binutils-2.22.90.20120907/gas/config.in @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ /* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers #endif #define __CONFIG_H__ 1 --- binutils-2.22.90.20120907.orig/ld/config.in +++ binutils-2.22.90.20120907/ld/config.in @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ /* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers #endif #define __CONFIG_H__ 1 --- binutils-2.22.90.20120907.orig/gold/config.in +++ binutils-2.22.90.20120907/gold/config.in @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ /* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers #endif #define __CONFIG_H__ 1 --- binutils-2.22.90.20120907.orig/opcodes/config.in +++ binutils-2.22.90.20120907/opcodes/config.in @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ /* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers #endif #define __CONFIG_H__ 1 --- binutils-2.22.90.20120907.orig/binutils/config.in +++ binutils-2.22.90.20120907/binutils/config.in @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ /* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers #endif ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23 2012-09-09 14:15 ` Matthias Klose @ 2012-09-09 14:48 ` Alan Modra 2012-09-10 15:16 ` Matthias Klose 2012-09-10 7:48 ` Tristan Gingold 1 sibling, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Alan Modra @ 2012-09-09 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthias Klose; +Cc: Tristan Gingold, binutils Development On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 04:11:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > a quick fix for this is to disable this safety check on kfreebsd by checking > that the __FreeBSD_kernel__ macro isn't defined. The patch is OK with suitable ChangeLog entries. -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23 2012-09-09 14:48 ` Alan Modra @ 2012-09-10 15:16 ` Matthias Klose 2012-09-10 22:33 ` Alan Modra 0 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Matthias Klose @ 2012-09-10 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: binutils Development [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 386 bytes --] On 09.09.2012 16:48, Alan Modra wrote: > On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 04:11:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: >> a quick fix for this is to disable this safety check on kfreebsd by checking >> that the __FreeBSD_kernel__ macro isn't defined. > > The patch is OK with suitable ChangeLog entries. attached (this time with the diff for ChangeLog's as well). please check it in. Matthias [-- Attachment #2: 2.23.diff --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 4723 bytes --] diff --git a/bfd/ChangeLog b/bfd/ChangeLog index 7fd344b..75254b4 100644 --- a/bfd/ChangeLog +++ b/bfd/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2012-09-10 Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> + + * config.in: Disable sanity check for kfreebsd. + 2012-09-07 Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> PR ld/14464 diff --git a/binutils/ChangeLog b/binutils/ChangeLog index 86d0995..4ca9aac 100644 --- a/binutils/ChangeLog +++ b/binutils/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2012-09-10 Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> + + * config.in: Disable sanity check for kfreebsd. + 2012-08-16 Ian Bolton <ian.bolton@arm.com> Laurent Desnogues <laurent.desnogues@arm.com> Jim MacArthur <jim.macarthur@arm.com> diff --git a/gas/ChangeLog b/gas/ChangeLog index f2a949c..7a8e167 100644 --- a/gas/ChangeLog +++ b/gas/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2012-09-10 Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> + + * config.in: Disable sanity check for kfreebsd. + 2012-09-10 Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> PR gas/14521 diff --git a/gold/ChangeLog b/gold/ChangeLog index 0b6bf49..122107d 100644 --- a/gold/ChangeLog +++ b/gold/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2012-09-10 Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> + + * config.in: Disable sanity check for kfreebsd. + 2012-08-09 Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> * po/vi.po: Updated Vietnamese translation. diff --git a/ld/ChangeLog b/ld/ChangeLog index 71f3ddd..a4c300a 100644 --- a/ld/ChangeLog +++ b/ld/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2012-09-10 Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> + + * config.in: Disable sanity check for kfreebsd. + 2012-09-10 Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> * emultempl/mmo.em (mmo_place_orphan): Rewrite to also attach diff --git a/opcodes/ChangeLog b/opcodes/ChangeLog index 384de9b..e8e6789 100644 --- a/opcodes/ChangeLog +++ b/opcodes/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2012-09-10 Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> + + * config.in: Disable sanity check for kfreebsd. + 2012-08-14 Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@codesourcery.com> * mips-dis.c (print_insn_args): Add GET_OP and GET_OP_S local --- binutils-2.22.90.20120907.orig/bfd/config.in +++ binutils-2.22.90.20120907/bfd/config.in @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ /* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers #endif #define __CONFIG_H__ 1 --- binutils-2.22.90.20120907.orig/gas/config.in +++ binutils-2.22.90.20120907/gas/config.in @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ /* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers #endif #define __CONFIG_H__ 1 --- binutils-2.22.90.20120907.orig/ld/config.in +++ binutils-2.22.90.20120907/ld/config.in @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ /* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers #endif #define __CONFIG_H__ 1 --- binutils-2.22.90.20120907.orig/gold/config.in +++ binutils-2.22.90.20120907/gold/config.in @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ /* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers #endif #define __CONFIG_H__ 1 --- binutils-2.22.90.20120907.orig/opcodes/config.in +++ binutils-2.22.90.20120907/opcodes/config.in @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ /* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers #endif #define __CONFIG_H__ 1 --- binutils-2.22.90.20120907.orig/binutils/config.in +++ binutils-2.22.90.20120907/binutils/config.in @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ /* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers #endif [-- Attachment #3: trunk.diff --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 4790 bytes --] diff --git a/bfd/ChangeLog b/bfd/ChangeLog index ff0c5c2..51e2562 100644 --- a/bfd/ChangeLog +++ b/bfd/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2012-09-10 Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> + + * config.in: Disable sanity check for kfreebsd. + 2012-09-04 Sergey A. Guriev <sergey.a.guriev@intel.com> * cpu-ia64-opc.c (ins_cnt6a): New function. diff --git a/binutils/ChangeLog b/binutils/ChangeLog index 7bc8a09..26932dd 100644 --- a/binutils/ChangeLog +++ b/binutils/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2012-09-10 Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> + + * config.in: Disable sanity check for kfreebsd. + 2012-09-06 Cary Coutant <ccoutant@google.com> * dwarf.c (decode_location_expression): Add diff --git a/gas/ChangeLog b/gas/ChangeLog index c2446e8..b5302d6 100644 --- a/gas/ChangeLog +++ b/gas/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2012-09-10 Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> + + * config.in: Disable sanity check for kfreebsd. + 2012-09-07 Anthony Green <green@moxielogic.com> * config/tc-moxie.c (md_pcrel_from): Branches are now relative diff --git a/gold/ChangeLog b/gold/ChangeLog index 7c16d7b..dcb6a8d 100644 --- a/gold/ChangeLog +++ b/gold/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2012-09-10 Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> + + * config.in: Disable sanity check for kfreebsd. + 2012-09-09 Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> * target.h (Target::gc_mark_symbol, do_gc_mark_symbol): New functions. diff --git a/ld/ChangeLog b/ld/ChangeLog index 32503b7..0f91ed5 100644 --- a/ld/ChangeLog +++ b/ld/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2012-09-10 Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> + + * config.in: Disable sanity check for kfreebsd. + 2012-09-10 Iain Sandoe <iain@codesourcery.com> * configure.tgt (powerpc-*-elf, et al): Define targ64_extra_emuls diff --git a/opcodes/ChangeLog b/opcodes/ChangeLog index 1cfb715..e6db29e 100644 --- a/opcodes/ChangeLog +++ b/opcodes/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2012-09-10 Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> + + * config.in: Disable sanity check for kfreebsd. + 2012-09-04 Sergey A. Guriev <sergey.a.guriev@intel.com> * ia64-asmtab.h (completer_index): Extend bitfield to full uint. --- binutils-2.22.90.20120907.orig/bfd/config.in +++ binutils-2.22.90.20120907/bfd/config.in @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ /* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers #endif #define __CONFIG_H__ 1 --- binutils-2.22.90.20120907.orig/gas/config.in +++ binutils-2.22.90.20120907/gas/config.in @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ /* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers #endif #define __CONFIG_H__ 1 --- binutils-2.22.90.20120907.orig/ld/config.in +++ binutils-2.22.90.20120907/ld/config.in @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ /* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers #endif #define __CONFIG_H__ 1 --- binutils-2.22.90.20120907.orig/gold/config.in +++ binutils-2.22.90.20120907/gold/config.in @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ /* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers #endif #define __CONFIG_H__ 1 --- binutils-2.22.90.20120907.orig/opcodes/config.in +++ binutils-2.22.90.20120907/opcodes/config.in @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ /* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers #endif #define __CONFIG_H__ 1 --- binutils-2.22.90.20120907.orig/binutils/config.in +++ binutils-2.22.90.20120907/binutils/config.in @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ /* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers #endif ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23 2012-09-10 15:16 ` Matthias Klose @ 2012-09-10 22:33 ` Alan Modra 2012-11-05 10:48 ` Alan Modra 0 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Alan Modra @ 2012-09-10 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthias Klose; +Cc: binutils Development On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 05:12:50PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 09.09.2012 16:48, Alan Modra wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 04:11:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > >> a quick fix for this is to disable this safety check on kfreebsd by checking > >> that the __FreeBSD_kernel__ macro isn't defined. > > > > The patch is OK with suitable ChangeLog entries. > > attached (this time with the diff for ChangeLog's as well). please check it in. Applied. -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23 2012-09-10 22:33 ` Alan Modra @ 2012-11-05 10:48 ` Alan Modra 2012-11-05 12:27 ` Alan Modra 0 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ messages in thread From: Alan Modra @ 2012-11-05 10:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthias Klose, binutils Development On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 08:03:31AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 05:12:50PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > On 09.09.2012 16:48, Alan Modra wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 04:11:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > >> a quick fix for this is to disable this safety check on kfreebsd by checking > > >> that the __FreeBSD_kernel__ macro isn't defined. > > > > > > The patch is OK with suitable ChangeLog entries. > > > > attached (this time with the diff for ChangeLog's as well). please check it in. > > Applied. Oops. config.in is a generated file.. * configure.in: Apply 2012-09-10 change to config.in here. Index: bfd/configure.in =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/src/bfd/configure.in,v retrieving revision 1.322 diff -u -p -r1.322 configure.in --- bfd/configure.in 30 Oct 2012 13:30:15 -0000 1.322 +++ bfd/configure.in 5 Nov 2012 10:31:27 -0000 @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ AC_CONFIG_HEADERS(config.h:config.in) AH_VERBATIM([00_CONFIG_H_CHECK], [/* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers #endif #define __CONFIG_H__ 1]) Index: gas/configure.in =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gas/configure.in,v retrieving revision 1.233 diff -u -p -r1.233 configure.in --- gas/configure.in 27 Jul 2012 16:30:54 -0000 1.233 +++ gas/configure.in 5 Nov 2012 10:31:30 -0000 @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ AC_CONFIG_HEADERS(config.h:config.in) AH_VERBATIM([00_CONFIG_H_CHECK], [/* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers #endif #define __CONFIG_H__ 1]) Index: ld/configure.in =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/src/ld/configure.in,v retrieving revision 1.78 diff -u -p -r1.78 configure.in --- ld/configure.in 14 Aug 2012 11:59:04 -0000 1.78 +++ ld/configure.in 5 Nov 2012 10:31:33 -0000 @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ AC_CONFIG_HEADERS([config.h:config.in]) AH_VERBATIM([00_CONFIG_H_CHECK], [/* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers #endif #define __CONFIG_H__ 1]) Index: opcodes/configure.in =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/src/opcodes/configure.in,v retrieving revision 1.112 diff -u -p -r1.112 configure.in --- opcodes/configure.in 17 Aug 2012 14:33:23 -0000 1.112 +++ opcodes/configure.in 5 Nov 2012 10:31:34 -0000 @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ AC_CONFIG_HEADERS(config.h:config.in) AH_VERBATIM([00_CONFIG_H_CHECK], [/* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers #endif #define __CONFIG_H__ 1]) -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23 2012-11-05 10:48 ` Alan Modra @ 2012-11-05 12:27 ` Alan Modra 0 siblings, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Alan Modra @ 2012-11-05 12:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthias Klose, binutils Development On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 09:18:01PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 08:03:31AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 05:12:50PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > On 09.09.2012 16:48, Alan Modra wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 04:11:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > >> a quick fix for this is to disable this safety check on kfreebsd by checking > > > >> that the __FreeBSD_kernel__ macro isn't defined. > > > > > > > > The patch is OK with suitable ChangeLog entries. > > > > > > attached (this time with the diff for ChangeLog's as well). please check it in. > > > > Applied. > > Oops. config.in is a generated file.. Sigh, and I missed binutils/configure.in and gold/configure.ac because config.in had already been regenerated in binutils and I wasn't building gold. I also don't see why the binutils directory should have a different test (not allowing multiple inclusion of config.h) to the others. binutils/ * configure.in: Apply 2012-09-10 change to config.in here. Add __CONFIG_H__ check. * config.in: Regenerate. gold/ * configure.ac: Apply 2012-09-10 change to config.in here. * configure: Regenerate. Index: binutils/configure.in =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/src/binutils/configure.in,v retrieving revision 1.114 diff -u -p -r1.114 configure.in --- binutils/configure.in 30 Oct 2012 12:44:54 -0000 1.114 +++ binutils/configure.in 5 Nov 2012 12:09:53 -0000 @@ -47,9 +47,10 @@ AC_CONFIG_HEADERS(config.h:config.in) AH_VERBATIM([00_CONFIG_H_CHECK], [/* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers -#endif]) +#endif +#define __CONFIG_H__ 1]) if test -z "$target" ; then AC_MSG_ERROR(Unrecognized target system type; please check config.sub.) Index: gold/configure.ac =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gold/configure.ac,v retrieving revision 1.78 diff -u -p -r1.78 configure.ac --- gold/configure.ac 15 Sep 2012 17:11:28 -0000 1.78 +++ gold/configure.ac 5 Nov 2012 12:09:56 -0000 @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ AM_CONFIG_HEADER(config.h:config.in) AH_VERBATIM([00_CONFIG_H_CHECK], [/* Check that config.h is #included before system headers (this works only for glibc, but that should be enough). */ -#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) +#if defined(__GLIBC__) && !defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) && !defined(__CONFIG_H__) # error config.h must be #included before system headers #endif #define __CONFIG_H__ 1]) -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23 2012-09-09 14:15 ` Matthias Klose 2012-09-09 14:48 ` Alan Modra @ 2012-09-10 7:48 ` Tristan Gingold 1 sibling, 0 replies; 65+ messages in thread From: Tristan Gingold @ 2012-09-10 7:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthias Klose; +Cc: binutils Development On Sep 9, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > one more change which should go the trunk and the branch. currently the builds > on kfreebsd are broken, Ok for the branch too. > > In file included from ../../bfd/sysdep.h:30:0, > from ../../bfd/archures.c:24: > ./config.h:7:4: error: #error config.h must be #included before system headers > make[5]: *** [archive.lo] Error 1 > > this is because gcc for kfreebsd defines the __GLIBC__ macro in > gcc/config/kfreebsd-gnu.h: > > #define GNU_USER_TARGET_OS_CPP_BUILTINS() \ > do \ > { \ > builtin_define ("__FreeBSD_kernel__"); \ > builtin_define ("__GLIBC__"); \ > builtin_define_std ("unix"); \ > builtin_assert ("system=unix"); \ > builtin_assert ("system=posix"); \ > } \ > while (0) > > > a quick fix for this is to disable this safety check on kfreebsd by checking > that the __FreeBSD_kernel__ macro isn't defined. > > Matthias > > <kfreebsd-buildfix.diff> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 65+ messages in thread
* Re: Release 2.23: Ping
@ 2012-08-31 22:01 Jeff Sheldon
2012-09-03 7:46 ` Tristan Gingold
0 siblings, 1 reply; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ 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; 65+ 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] 65+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-11-05 12:27 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 65+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2012-07-23 12:41 Release 2.23 Tristan Gingold 2012-07-31 20:30 ` Matthias Klose 2012-08-01 8:54 ` Richard Earnshaw 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 2012-09-05 9:02 ` Release 2.23: Ping #2 Tristan Gingold 2012-09-07 3:14 ` Alan Modra 2012-09-09 17:05 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson 2012-09-18 15:51 ` Release 2.23: Ping #3 Tristan Gingold 2012-09-18 15:54 ` H.J. Lu 2012-09-19 15:43 ` H.J. Lu 2012-09-24 12:23 ` Tristan Gingold 2012-08-01 15:50 ` Release 2.23 Mike Frysinger 2012-08-02 8:11 ` nick clifton 2012-08-01 14:50 ` Maciej W. Rozycki 2012-09-09 14:15 ` Matthias Klose 2012-09-09 14:48 ` Alan Modra 2012-09-10 15:16 ` Matthias Klose 2012-09-10 22:33 ` Alan Modra 2012-11-05 10:48 ` Alan Modra 2012-11-05 12:27 ` Alan Modra 2012-09-10 7:48 ` Tristan Gingold 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
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).