Re: GCC 7.1 Released

2017-05-12 Thread Joel Sherrill 
On May 12, 2017 3:42 AM, "Chris Johns"  wrote:

On 12/05/2017 18:39, Sebastian Huber wrote:

> On 12/05/17 10:35, Chris Johns wrote:
>
>> On 12/05/2017 15:56, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/05/17 17:29, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>>
>> I talked to Joel late his time yesterday and he is reporting increased
>> code size and as a result some tests are not fitting into the target.
>> Rather than head on into the change we think it is better to step back
>> and visit it again after we have a release. What do you think?
>>
>
> A code size increase would be not an issue for me if its in the range of
> a small percent range. However, we should identify this and create a GCC
> PR.
>
> Gaisler suggested to use GCC 7.1. Did Gaisler observe some significant
> code size changes on SPARC?
>
>
Sorry I do not have any detail. I am sure Joel can provide some when he is
online and has some time.

I think all he did was build all the BSPs with tests and saw some new
failures.


21 BSPs failed to link some.test due to a memory overflow. Mix or at least
arm and 68k

4am here. I will post when i am really awake.b



Chris

___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: GCC 7.1 Released

2017-05-12 Thread Chris Johns 

On 12/05/2017 18:39, Sebastian Huber wrote:

On 12/05/17 10:35, Chris Johns wrote:

On 12/05/2017 15:56, Sebastian Huber wrote:

On 11/05/17 17:29, Joel Sherrill wrote:

I talked to Joel late his time yesterday and he is reporting increased
code size and as a result some tests are not fitting into the target.
Rather than head on into the change we think it is better to step back
and visit it again after we have a release. What do you think?


A code size increase would be not an issue for me if its in the range of
a small percent range. However, we should identify this and create a GCC
PR.

Gaisler suggested to use GCC 7.1. Did Gaisler observe some significant
code size changes on SPARC?



Sorry I do not have any detail. I am sure Joel can provide some when he 
is online and has some time.


I think all he did was build all the BSPs with tests and saw some new 
failures.


Chris
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: GCC 7.1 Released

2017-05-12 Thread Chris Johns 

On 12/05/2017 15:56, Sebastian Huber wrote:

On 11/05/17 17:29, Joel Sherrill wrote:

Ok to

On May 11, 2017 5:09 AM, "Sebastian Huber"
> wrote:

Hello,

if someone wants to use GCC 7.1 for RTEMS 4.12, then the RSB
should be updated accordingly as soon as possible.


Chris posted a patch to bump gcc and binutils. He just needs to push it.


I didn't see the patch. According to



I have not posted anything.


contrib/download_prerequisites

we should use

gmp='gmp-6.1.0.tar.bz2'
mpfr='mpfr-3.1.4.tar.bz2'
mpc='mpc-1.0.3.tar.gz'
isl='isl-0.16.1.tar.bz2'

for GCC 7.



I talked to Joel late his time yesterday and he is reporting increased 
code size and as a result some tests are not fitting into the target. 
Rather than head on into the change we think it is better to step back 
and visit it again after we have a release. What do you think?


Chris
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: GCC 7.1 Released

2017-05-11 Thread Sebastian Huber 

On 11/05/17 17:29, Joel Sherrill wrote:

Ok to

On May 11, 2017 5:09 AM, "Sebastian Huber" 
> wrote:


Hello,

if someone wants to use GCC 7.1 for RTEMS 4.12, then the RSB
should be updated accordingly as soon as possible.


Chris posted a patch to bump gcc and binutils. He just needs to push it.


I didn't see the patch. According to

contrib/download_prerequisites

we should use

gmp='gmp-6.1.0.tar.bz2'
mpfr='mpfr-3.1.4.tar.bz2'
mpc='mpc-1.0.3.tar.gz'
isl='isl-0.16.1.tar.bz2'

for GCC 7.

--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH

Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone   : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail  : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
PGP : Public key available on request.

Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.

___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: GCC 7.1 Released

2017-05-11 Thread Joel Sherrill 
Ok to

On May 11, 2017 5:09 AM, "Sebastian Huber" <
sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:

Hello,

if someone wants to use GCC 7.1 for RTEMS 4.12, then the RSB should be
updated accordingly as soon as possible.


Chris posted a patch to bump gcc and binutils. He just needs to push it.

I had a local patch to just do gcc but thanks to timezone differences, he
posted first. :)



-- 
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH

Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone   : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail  : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
PGP : Public key available on request.

Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: GCC 7.1 Released

2017-05-11 Thread Sebastian Huber 

Hello,

if someone wants to use GCC 7.1 for RTEMS 4.12, then the RSB should be 
updated accordingly as soon as possible.


--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH

Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone   : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail  : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
PGP : Public key available on request.

Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.

___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: GCC 7.1 Released

2017-05-09 Thread Sebastian Huber 



On 09/05/17 14:54, Daniel Hellstrom wrote:

On 2017-05-03 07:11, Sebastian Huber wrote:

On 03/05/17 03:33, Chris Johns wrote:

On 3/5/17 3:04 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:

>
>Thoughts on upgrading the 4.12 tools?
>

Looks good with updated dependent packages for gcc and with
binutils-2.28. There are no build failures for just the tests. Attached
is the warnings report which looks good if the networking warnings are
ignored.


I would rather use the GCC 6 which received some bug fix releases in 
the mean time and was used most of the time of the RTEMS 4.12 
development. For RTEMS 5 I would use GCC 8.


For the gaisler toolchain we are currently planning on using GCC 7.1.



If you tested this version thoroughly than this is fine for me. Did you 
build all RTEMS targets which currently use GCC 6 with this version and 
can you provide the RSB patches? If yes, then please use the versions 
specified by GCC contrib/download_prerequisites for the support libraries.


A new GCC version probably means new warnings to fix.

We should manage the GCC selection better in the future. GCC 6 received 
considerable more testing and regression fixes than GCC 7.1 which is 
only two weeks old.


--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH

Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone   : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail  : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
PGP : Public key available on request.

Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.

___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: GCC 7.1 Released

2017-05-09 Thread Daniel Hellstrom 

On 2017-05-03 07:11, Sebastian Huber wrote:

On 03/05/17 03:33, Chris Johns wrote:

On 3/5/17 3:04 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:

>
>Thoughts on upgrading the 4.12 tools?
>

Looks good with updated dependent packages for gcc and with
binutils-2.28. There are no build failures for just the tests. Attached
is the warnings report which looks good if the networking warnings are
ignored.


I would rather use the GCC 6 which received some bug fix releases in 
the mean time and was used most of the time of the RTEMS 4.12 
development. For RTEMS 5 I would use GCC 8.


For the gaisler toolchain we are currently planning on using GCC 7.1.


___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: GCC 7.1 Released

2017-05-02 Thread Sebastian Huber 

On 03/05/17 03:33, Chris Johns wrote:

On 3/5/17 3:04 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:

>
>Thoughts on upgrading the 4.12 tools?
>

Looks good with updated dependent packages for gcc and with
binutils-2.28. There are no build failures for just the tests. Attached
is the warnings report which looks good if the networking warnings are
ignored.


I would rather use the GCC 6 which received some bug fix releases in the 
mean time and was used most of the time of the RTEMS 4.12 development. 
For RTEMS 5 I would use GCC 8.


--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH

Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone   : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail  : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
PGP : Public key available on request.

Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.

___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: GCC 7.1 Released

2017-05-02 Thread Chris Johns 
On 3/5/17 3:04 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> 
> Thoughts on upgrading the 4.12 tools?
> 

Looks good with updated dependent packages for gcc and with
binutils-2.28. There are no build failures for just the tests. Attached
is the warnings report which looks good if the networking warnings are
ignored.

The test results for erc32 are:

Passed:548
Failed:  2
User Input:  4
Expected Fail:   0
Indeterminate:   0
Benchmark:   3
Timeout: 1
Invalid: 1
--
Total: 559

Failures:
 tar01.exe
 spcontext01.exe
User Input:
 fileio.exe
 top.exe
 termios.exe
 monitor.exe
Benchmark:
 dhrystone.exe
 whetstone.exe
 linpack.exe
Timeouts:
 capture.exe
Invalid:
 minimum.exe

I think capture needs to be tagged as user input.

Chris
RTEMS Tools Project - RTEMS Kernel BSP Builder, 4.12.not_released

Date: Wed May  3 21:04:05 2017

command: /opt/work/rtems/4.12/bin/rtems-bsp-builder --rtems-\
 tools=/build/rtems/tools/4.12\
 --rtems=/opt/work/chris/rtems/kernel/rtems.git --build=tests\
 --log=x --warnings-report=warnings-tier-1-tests.txt

 +=+
 | By Architecture (total : 288)   |
 +-+
 | common : 33 warning(s)  |
 +-+++-+
 |   Shared :0 | BSP :0 | Network :  136 |Tests :0 |
 |   LibCPU :0 | CPU Kit :0 || |
 +---+-+++-+
 | 4 | cpukit/librpc/src/rpc/get_myaddress.c:130:5 |
 | 2 | cpukit/libnetworking/libc/getservbyport.c:52:4  |
 | 2 | cpukit/libnetworking/netinet/tcp_usrreq.c:106:16|
 | 2 | cpukit/librpc/src/rpc/rpc_dtablesize.c:55:1 |
 | 2 | cpukit/libnetworking/libc/getservbyname.c:52:4  |
 | 2 | cpukit/librpc/src/rpc/rpc_prot.c:215:2  |
 | 2 | cpukit/librpc/src/rpc/get_myaddress.c:80:1  |
 | 2 | cpukit/librpc/src/rpc/rpc_prot.c:255:2  |
 | 2 | cpukit/librpc/src/rpc/rpcdname.c:78:1   |
 | 2 | cpukit/libnetworking/libc/res_update.c:90:12|
 | 2 | cpukit/libnetworking/netinet/tcp_output.c:408:4 |
 | 2 | cpukit/libnetworking/netinet/tcp_output.c:422:5 |
 | 2 | cpukit/librpc/src/rpc/getrpcport.c:52:1 |
 | 2 | cpukit/libnetworking/netinet/tcp_usrreq.c:497:16|
 | 2 | cpukit/libnetworking/lib/getprotoby.c:37:1  |
 | 2 | cpukit/librpc/src/rpc/rpc_prot.c:115:2  |
 | 2 | cpukit/librpc/src/rpc/auth_unix.c:102:1 |
 | 2 | cpukit/libnetworking/netinet/tcp_output.c:393:4 |
 | 2 | cpukit/libnetworking/lib/getprotoby.c:22:1  |
 | 2 | cpukit/librpc/src/rpc/svc_simple.c:71:1 |
 | 2 | cpukit/libnetworking/netinet/tcp_output.c:429:5 |
 | 2 | cpukit/libnetworking/netinet/tcp_usrreq.c:182:16|
 | 2 | cpukit/librpc/src/rpc/clnt_simple.c:65:1|
 | 2 | cpukit/librpc/src/rpc/rpc_prot.c:138:1  |
 | 2 | cpukit/librpc/src/rpc/rpc_prot.c:105:1  |
 | 2 | cpukit/librpc/src/rpc/svc_udp.c:346:5   |
 | 2 | cpukit/librpc/src/rpc/svc_auth_unix.c:147:1 |
 | 2 | cpukit/librpc/src/rpc/svc_auth_unix.c:59:1  |
 | 2 | cpukit/libnetworking/netinet/tcp_usrreq.c:292:16|
 | 2 | cpukit/libnetworking/libc/gethostnamadr.c:169:4 |
 | 2 | cpukit/librpc/src/rpc/rtime.c:75:1  |
 | 2 | cpukit/libnetworking/netinet/tcp_usrreq.c:484:16|
 | 2 | cpukit/librpc/src/rpc/rpc_prot.c:146:2  |
 +---+-+
 | arm : 1 warning(s)  |
 +-+++-+
 |   Shared :0 | BSP :0 | Network :  175 |Tests :0 |
 |   LibCPU :0 | CPU Kit :0 || |
 +---+-+++-+
 | 5 | cpukit/libnetworking/netinet/in_cksum.c:84:1|
 +---+-+
 | i386 : 1 warning(s) |
 +-+++-+
 |   Shared :0 | BSP :0 | Network :   35 |Tests :0 |
 |   LibCPU :0 | CPU Kit :0 || |