Hi Config-maintainers,
Is this patch ok for trunk?
Thanks!
Jing
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Jing Yu jin...@google.com wrote:
Hi,
This patch changes top level configure to add aarch64 to list of
targets that support gold. Have tested binutils with this patch on
x86_64 and aarch64
Hi,
This patch changes top level configure to add aarch64 to list of
targets that support gold. Have tested binutils with this patch on
x86_64 and aarch64 platforms.
OK for trunk?
2014-09-18 Jing Yu jin...@google.com
* configure.ac: Add aarch64 to list of targets that support gold
Add new validator manifest xfail file for native powerpc64 toolchain.
Ok for google/gcc-4_7?
Tested:
./validate_failures.py
--manifest=powerpc64-grtev3-linux-gnu-native.xfail --
results=gcc/gcc.sum g++/g++.sum gfortran/gfortran.sum
2013-06-05jin...@google.com
*
Hi,
Current Makefile.in does not match Makefile.def. Regenerate it by
autogen Makefile.def.
Tested the patched google/gcc-4_8 with crosstool-validate.py
--testers=crosstool.
OK for google/gcc-4_8?
Thanks,
Jing
Index: Makefile.in
Got new regression failures when using gold to run gcc regression
tests. The failures are related to LIPO (b/8397853).
Since LIPO won't be available for Powerpc64 target until the end of
2013Q2, mark these tests expected failure.
OK for google/gcc-4_7?
Tested:
Extract testresults from nightly
I made a mistake in my previous patch. I did not notice that
Makefile.in was a generated file. Update the patch.
2013-03-12 Jing Yu jin...@google.com
* Makefile.def (Target modules dependencies): Add new dependency.
* Makefile.in: Re-generate.
Index: Makefile.in
binWsrE0LGKO9.bin
Description: Binary data
on upstream trunk, how does the patch sound to trunk?
Thanks,
Jing
2013-03-11 Jing Yu jin...@google.com
* Makefile.in: (maybe-configure-target-libmudflap):
Add dependence on configure-target-libstdc++-v3.
Index: Makefile.in
Add powerpc64-grtev3-linux-gnu.xfail to mark expected failures for
powerpc64 toolchain. For google/gcc_4-7 branch.
Tested:
./buildit --build_type=symlinks --keep_work_dir --run_tests
gcc-4.7.x-grtev3-powerpc64
2012-12-10 Jing Yu jin...@google.com
* contrib/testsuite-management
Backport r183875 from trunk and gcc-4.7 to fix PR51811 ([C++0x] Incorrect
increment/decrement of atomic pointers).
Tested:
1) --testers=crosstool.
2) unit test in Google ref b/6702865
OK for google-4_6 branch?
Thanks,
Jing
2012-07-19 Jing Yu jin...@google.com
Backport r183875
It is not a straightforward backport.
atomic has changed a lot in gcc-4.7. is_lock_free() body is entirely
different between gcc-4.6 and r183875. In gcc-4.6, is_lock_free()
simply returns false or true. Notice that gcc-4.6 defines two
namesapce __atomic0, __atomic2 in separate files (atomic_0.h,
-mobile.
OK?
2012-05-18 Jing Yu jin...@google.com
Backport from trunk r187586:
2012-05-16 Igor Zamyatin igor.zamya...@intel.com
* configure.ac: Stack protector enabling for Android targets.
* configure: Regenerate.
Index: gcc/configure
I would like to port this patch to google/gcc-4_6 and also
google/gcc-4_6_2-mobile.
From reading the patch, it does not change config for non-Android target.
bootstrap,crosstool tests finished successfully on google/gcc-4_6.
Built ARM android toolchain successfully.
OK?
Thanks,
Jing
On Thu,
LGTM
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:24 AM, asha...@chromium.org wrote:
On 2012/05/01 22:51:22, jingyu wrote:
1) Please add an description entry to libgcc/ChangeLog.google-4_6
Done.
2) Your gcc/ChangeLog.google-4_6 change reverts someone else's change.
Please
update it and also update
This patch looks good for Android toolchain. But I am not a maintainer.
Can any x86 backend maintainer help to review the patch?
Thanks,
Jing
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com wrote:
Ping
13 марта 2012 г. 15:13 пользователь Ilya Enkovich
This patch looks good for Android toolchain. But I am not a maintainer.
Can any x86 backend maintainer help to review the patch?
Thanks,
Jing
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com wrote:
Ping
13 марта 2012 г. 15:12 пользователь Ilya Enkovich
Backport r184061 from gcc-4_6 branch to fix an invalid
constant simplification (PR52060).
bootstrap and crosstool tests pass.
OK for google/gcc-4_6 and google/gcc-4_6_2-mobile?
2012-03-01 Jing Yu jin...@google.com
Backport r184061 from gcc-4_6-branch to fix PR52060.
2012-02
The patch will be auto-merged into google/gcc-4_6 in near future.
I will cherry-pick it into google/gcc-4_6_2-mobile.
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Jing Yu jin...@google.com wrote:
Backport r184061 from gcc-4_6 branch to fix an invalid
constant simplification (PR52060).
bootstrap
I ported this patch into google/gcc-4_6_2-mobile.
Thanks,
Jing
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Sriraman Tallam tmsri...@google.com wrote:
Committed now, thanks.
-Sri.
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com
wrote:
ok.
David
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:19
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Ilya Enkovich enkovich@gmail.com wrote:
My comment is(was) not on the format of the patch. Instead, I am
thinking whether Android toolchain customer, which is Android AOSP,
wants this patch.
I don't know the scenario behind this patch. I think the
My comment is(was) not on the format of the patch. Instead, I am
thinking whether Android toolchain customer, which is Android AOSP,
wants this patch.
I don't know the scenario behind this patch. I think the question
behind this patch is, if RTTI and exceptions are enabled by default,
who is
with .init_array/.fini_array).
I also built Android toolchain and verified gcc_cv_initfini_array=no.
r177933 is already in google/gcc-4_6_2-mobile and
google/gcc-4_6-mobile. I need to backport the rest to these two
branches.
ok?
2012-02-21 Jing Yu jin...@google.com
Google Ref 47894
So far, Android ARM toolchain, which builds Android platform for ARM
boards, does not enable RTTI and exceptions by default. There are
license concerns with the use of GNU libstdc++ and libsupc++.
Thanks,
Jing
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
I am OK with the patch, I am not a maintainer though.
Jing
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:11 AM, H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com wrote:
Hi,
Android uses crtbegin_so.o and crtend_so.o to build shared library with
-mshared. OK for trunk in stage 1?
H.J.
---
2011-12-13 H.J. Lu
-4_6_2-mobile branch still has the same problem. Could
please someone fix it?
Thanks
Ilya
Ollie
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Jing Yu jin...@google.com wrote:
OK. Thanks for porting the patch.
I will commit the patch into google/gcc-4_6_2-mobile for you.
I would also like to commit
Hi H.J.,
I think the patch itself is not enough.
I compared AC_DEFUN([gcc_AC_INITFINI_ARRAY] part (in acinclude.m4)
of gcc trunk and google/gcc-4_6_2-mobile, and found how
enable_initfini_array is
configured is different.
The patch breaks some of our tests. enable_initfini_array should be
OK. Thanks for porting the patch.
I will commit the patch into google/gcc-4_6_2-mobile for you.
I would also like to commit it into google/gcc-4_6 branch if all tests
pass. This patch is almost the same as Google Ref 47894.
Thanks,
Jing
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 5:20 PM, H.J. Lu
arm-eabi toolchain needs GNU-stack note for security purpose.
Will Keep this patch in google branches.
OK for google/main?
I would like to port this patch to google/gcc-4_6, google/gcc-4_6-mobile,
google/gcc-4_6_2-moible.
2012-02-14 Jing Yu jin...@google.com
Google ref 42402-p2
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Carrot Wei car...@google.com wrote:
Hi Richard and Jakub
Since 4.6 contains the same bug, I would like to back port it to 4.6
branch. Could you approve it for 4.6?
Jing and Doug
Could you approve it for google/gcc-4_6-mobile branch?
OK for
, Jing Yu wrote:
Index: config/locale/generic/c_locale.cc
===
--- config/locale/generic/c_locale.cc (revision 182019)
+++ config/locale/generic/c_locale.cc (working copy)
@@ -52,8 +52,8 @@
{
// Assumes __s formatted
.
2011-12-14 H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com
Jing Yu jin...@google.com
* config/locale/generic/c_locale.h (__convert_from_v): Replace
NULL with 0.
* config/locale/generic/c_locale.cc (__convert_to_v): Likewise
* config/locale/generic/time_members.cc (_M_put
Hi Ahmad,
This is a backport for two upstream patches into our 4.6-mobile branch.
These two patches have been backported to google-4.6 by Doug Kwan last week.
2011-12-05 Jing Yu jin...@google.com
Backport r171347 and r181549 from trunk.
gcc/
2011-03-23 Julian Brown jul
Hi Ahmad,
This is a backport for two upstream patches into our 4.6-mobile branch.
These two patches have been backported to google-4.6 by Doug Kwan last week.
2011-12-05 Jing Yu jin...@google.com
Backport r171347 and r181549 from trunk.
gcc/
2011-03-23 Julian Brown jul
Ping.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg02208.html
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Jing Yu jin...@google.com wrote:
Based on discussion on another thread
(http://www.mail-archive.com/gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org/msg06627.html),
what Joseph recommended was ripping out all support
ARM maintainers,
Is it ok to skip building target-libiberty for arm*-*-linux-androideabi target?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg02208.html
Thanks,
Jing
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:26 AM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
Ping.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com wrote:
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 12:49 -0700, Jing Yu wrote:
Since this patch has been properly approved, if there is no objection
in 24 hours, I will commit this patch to trunk.
Once a patch has been approved by an appropriate
don't have the bandwidth to work on the ideal patch. Thus I am
wondering if we can skip target-libiberty for androideabi target
before the ideal patch is out.
Thanks,
Jing
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Ye Joey joey.ye...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Jing Yu jin...@google.com
Since this patch has been properly approved, if there is no objection
in 24 hours, I will commit this patch to trunk.
Thanks,
Jing
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Jing Yu jin...@google.com wrote:
Hi Sofiane,
I find your following patch has been approved by Richard in Oct last
year
is on going. I am not sure how long it would be.
I would suggest we first commit this tiny patch in google/main and
make our toolchain built. Then do further update if the trunk version is final.
Thanks,
Jing
2011-05-31 Jing Yu jin...@google.com
* configure.ac: Skip target-libiberty for arm
on it. Before that patch comes
out, can we add arm*-*-linux-androideabi to the list of targets where
target-libiberty is skipped?
Thanks,
Jing
2011-05-08 Jing Yu jin...@google.com
* configure.ac: Skip target-libiberty for
arm*-*-linux-androideabi.
* configure
Hi Sofiane,
I find your following patch has been approved by Richard in Oct last
year, but it is not trunk.
Is there any problem with it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg00266.html
If you don't mind, I can help to commit the patch.
Thanks,
Jing
)
noconfigdirs=$noconfigdirs target-libiberty
;;
avr-*-*)
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:00 AM, Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2011, Jing Yu wrote:
I am wondering how to disable build of libiberty for target? I
Tear out all the target-libiberty code
Carrot
2011-05-24 Jing Yu jin...@google.com
* ChangeLog.google-main: New file.
* getpagesize.c(getpagesize): Disable it for bionic.
Index: ChangeLog.google-main
===
--- ChangeLog.google-main (revision 0
in some cases.
Jing
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Doug Kwan (關振德) dougk...@google.com wrote:
Jing
Can't we just skip libiberty in top-level configure.ac? Look for the
comment Disable target libiberty for some systems.
-Doug
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Jing Yu jin...@google.com wrote
causes segmentation
fault.
Thanks,
Jing
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
I'm committing this patch for Jing Yu on google/main.
The patch handles NULL values returned from setlocale. Jing, could
you please describe why this was needed? Is this a patch
45 matches
Mail list logo
