Re: [Ping][PATCH 0/6][ARM] Implement support for ACLE Coprocessor Intrinsics

[Andre Vieira (lists)]

On 29/11/16 10:37, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> 
> On 29/11/16 10:35, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>> On 21/11/16 08:42, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 November 2016 at 11:45, Kyrill Tkachov
>>>  wrote:
 On 17/11/16 10:31, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
> Hi Kyrill,
>
> On 17/11/16 10:11, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
>> Hi Andre,
>>
>> On 09/11/16 10:00, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>>> Tested the series by bootstrapping arm-none-linux-gnuabihf and
>>> found no
>>> regressions, also did a normal build for arm-none-eabi and ran the
>>> acle.exp tests for a Cortex-M3.
>> Can you please also do a full testsuite run on
>> arm-none-linux-gnueabihf.
>> Patches have to be tested by the whole testsuite.
> That's what I have done and meant to say with "Tested the series by
> bootstrapping arm-none-linux-gnuabihf and found no regressions". I
> compared gcc/g++/libstdc++ tests on a bootstrap with and without the
> patches.

 Ah ok, great.

> I'm happy to rerun the tests after a rebase when the patches get
> approved.
>>> FWIW, I ran a validation with the 6 patches applied, and saw no
>>> regression.
>>> Given the large number of new tests, I didn't check the full details.
>>>
>>> If you want to check that each configuration has the PASSes you expect,
>>> you can have a look at:
>>> http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc-test-patches/242581-acle/report-build-info.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Christophe
>>>
>>>
 Thanks,
 Kyrill

> Cheers,
> Andre

> 
> Hi Andre,
> 
>> Ping. (For the patch series).
> 
> Have you seen my review at:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg01778.html ?
> It might require some minor rework of some parts of the series.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kyrill
> 
> 
Hmm no I had not, must have accidently marked it as read...
Ill go work on the comments. Sorry for the ping.

Re: [Ping][PATCH 0/6][ARM] Implement support for ACLE Coprocessor Intrinsics

[Kyrill Tkachov]

On 29/11/16 10:35, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:

On 21/11/16 08:42, Christophe Lyon wrote:

Hi,


On 17 November 2016 at 11:45, Kyrill Tkachov
 wrote:

On 17/11/16 10:31, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:

Hi Kyrill,

On 17/11/16 10:11, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:

Hi Andre,

On 09/11/16 10:00, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:

Tested the series by bootstrapping arm-none-linux-gnuabihf and found no
regressions, also did a normal build for arm-none-eabi and ran the
acle.exp tests for a Cortex-M3.

Can you please also do a full testsuite run on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf.
Patches have to be tested by the whole testsuite.

That's what I have done and meant to say with "Tested the series by
bootstrapping arm-none-linux-gnuabihf and found no regressions". I
compared gcc/g++/libstdc++ tests on a bootstrap with and without the
patches.


Ah ok, great.


I'm happy to rerun the tests after a rebase when the patches get approved.

FWIW, I ran a validation with the 6 patches applied, and saw no regression.
Given the large number of new tests, I didn't check the full details.

If you want to check that each configuration has the PASSes you expect,
you can have a look at:
http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc-test-patches/242581-acle/report-build-info.html

Thanks,

Christophe



Thanks,
Kyrill


Cheers,
Andre




Hi Andre,


Ping. (For the patch series).


Have you seen my review at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg01778.html ?
It might require some minor rework of some parts of the series.

Thanks,
Kyrill

[Ping][PATCH 0/6][ARM] Implement support for ACLE Coprocessor Intrinsics

[Andre Vieira (lists)]

On 21/11/16 08:42, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> On 17 November 2016 at 11:45, Kyrill Tkachov
>  wrote:
>>
>> On 17/11/16 10:31, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Kyrill,
>>>
>>> On 17/11/16 10:11, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:

 Hi Andre,

 On 09/11/16 10:00, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>
> Tested the series by bootstrapping arm-none-linux-gnuabihf and found no
> regressions, also did a normal build for arm-none-eabi and ran the
> acle.exp tests for a Cortex-M3.

 Can you please also do a full testsuite run on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf.
 Patches have to be tested by the whole testsuite.
>>>
>>> That's what I have done and meant to say with "Tested the series by
>>> bootstrapping arm-none-linux-gnuabihf and found no regressions". I
>>> compared gcc/g++/libstdc++ tests on a bootstrap with and without the
>>> patches.
>>
>>
>> Ah ok, great.
>>
>>>
>>> I'm happy to rerun the tests after a rebase when the patches get approved.
>>
> FWIW, I ran a validation with the 6 patches applied, and saw no regression.
> Given the large number of new tests, I didn't check the full details.
> 
> If you want to check that each configuration has the PASSes you expect,
> you can have a look at:
> http://people.linaro.org/~christophe.lyon/cross-validation/gcc-test-patches/242581-acle/report-build-info.html
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Christophe
> 
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kyrill
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Andre
>>
>>
Ping. (For the patch series).