20 May
2016
20 May
'16
6:56 a.m.
From: Cupertino Miranda <cmiranda(a)synopsys.com>
Wih new bintuils supporting DT_RELACOUNT, ldso was crashing as it was
parsing relocs incorrectly.
Apparently that code ran for first time and was never tested.
Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta(a)synopsys.com>
---
ldso/ldso/arc/dl-sysdep.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/ldso/ldso/arc/dl-sysdep.h b/ldso/ldso/arc/dl-sysdep.h
index b6bda9d14691..caece997d254 100644
--- a/ldso/ldso/arc/dl-sysdep.h
+++ b/ldso/ldso/arc/dl-sysdep.h
@@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ static __always_inline void
elf_machine_relative (Elf32_Addr load_off, const Elf32_Addr rel_addr,
Elf32_Word relative_count)
{
- Elf32_Rel * rpnt = (void *) rel_addr;
+ Elf32_Rela * rpnt = (void *) rel_addr;
--rpnt;
do {
Elf32_Addr *const reloc_addr = (void *) (load_off + (++rpnt)->r_offset);
--
2.5.0
20 May
20 May
7:27 a.m.
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Vineet Gupta
<Vineet.Gupta1(a)synopsys.com> wrote:
From: Cupertino Miranda <cmiranda(a)synopsys.com>
Wih new bintuils supporting DT_RELACOUNT, ldso was crashing as it was
parsing relocs incorrectly.
Apparently that code ran for first time and was never tested.
Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta(a)synopsys.com>
---
ldso/ldso/arc/dl-sysdep.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/ldso/ldso/arc/dl-sysdep.h b/ldso/ldso/arc/dl-sysdep.h
index b6bda9d14691..caece997d254 100644
--- a/ldso/ldso/arc/dl-sysdep.h
+++ b/ldso/ldso/arc/dl-sysdep.h
@@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ static __always_inline void
elf_machine_relative (Elf32_Addr load_off, const Elf32_Addr rel_addr,
Elf32_Word relative_count)
{
- Elf32_Rel * rpnt = (void *) rel_addr;
+ Elf32_Rela * rpnt = (void *) rel_addr;
This is ok
--rpnt;
do {
Elf32_Addr *const reloc_addr = (void *) (load_off +
(++rpnt)->r_offset);
--
2.5.0
_______________________________________________
uClibc mailing list
uClibc(a)uclibc.org
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
8:26 a.m.
On Friday 20 May 2016 12:57 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Vineet Gupta
<Vineet.Gupta1(a)synopsys.com> wrote:
Is this is question - ARC is a rela ABI and this fell thru cracks as it was not
being exercised at all due to lack of DT_RELACOUNT support in binutils so far.
From: Cupertino Miranda
<cmiranda(a)synopsys.com>
Wih new bintuils supporting DT_RELACOUNT, ldso was crashing as it was
parsing relocs incorrectly.
Apparently that code ran for first time and was never tested.
Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta(a)synopsys.com>
---
ldso/ldso/arc/dl-sysdep.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/ldso/ldso/arc/dl-sysdep.h b/ldso/ldso/arc/dl-sysdep.h
index b6bda9d14691..caece997d254 100644
--- a/ldso/ldso/arc/dl-sysdep.h
+++ b/ldso/ldso/arc/dl-sysdep.h
@@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ static __always_inline void
elf_machine_relative (Elf32_Addr load_off, const Elf32_Addr rel_addr,
Elf32_Word relative_count)
{
- Elf32_Rel * rpnt = (void *) rel_addr;
+ Elf32_Rela * rpnt = (void *) rel_addr;
This is ok
> --rpnt;
> do {
> Elf32_Addr *const reloc_addr = (void *) (load_off +
(++rpnt)->r_offset);
> --
> 2.5.0
>
> _______________________________________________
> uClibc mailing list
> uClibc(a)uclibc.org
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
28 May
28 May
7:59 p.m.
Hi,
Vineet Gupta wrote,
From: Cupertino Miranda <cmiranda(a)synopsys.com>
Wih new bintuils supporting DT_RELACOUNT, ldso was crashing as it was
parsing relocs incorrectly.
Apparently that code ran for first time and was never tested.
Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta(a)synopsys.com>
Applied and pushed,
But the testsuite results are still not pretty.
ARM and Xtensa are down to zero failures.
ARC has between 28-30 failures even with latest binutils/gcc
release. Anyone from you can take a look?
For example:
http://tests.embedded-test.org/uClibc-ng/1.0.14/REPORT.arcv2.nsim.libc.uCli…
Thanks
Waldemar
30 May
30 May
4:31 a.m.
On Sunday 29 May 2016 01:30 AM, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote:
ARC has between 28-30 failures even with latest
binutils/gcc
Latest here is pretty overloaded :-) We had 2016.03 release recently and then
there's bleeding edge binutils atleast which is tracking pretty close to upstream
binutils.
What exact versions of these tools are you using.
Thx,
-Vineet
5:20 a.m.
Hi Vineet,
Vineet Gupta wrote,
On Sunday 29 May 2016 01:30 AM, Waldemar Brodkorb
wrote:
I am using 2016.03. I wanted to say latest release :=)
The 1.0.15 testrun is not yet finished, but I think it is
simply reproducable by running nsim and uclibcng-testrunner.sh.
best regards
Waldemar
ARC has between 28-30 failures even with latest
binutils/gcc
Latest here is pretty overloaded :-) We had 2016.03 release recently and then
there's bleeding edge binutils atleast which is tracking pretty close to upstream
binutils.
What exact versions of these tools are you using.
5:34 a.m.
Hi,
Waldemar Brodkorb wrote,
Hi Vineet,
Vineet Gupta wrote,
Nsim is nice to script, but the performance
is pretty bad. Running the testsuite takes for the four combinations
(arc700,archs,little and big mode) mostly the same time as
running all the other tests in Qemu :)
1 CORE 100 % CPU...
Would be NSIM Pro faster?
best regards
Waldemar
On Sunday 29 May 2016 01:30 AM, Waldemar Brodkorb
wrote:
I am using 2016.03. I wanted to say latest release :=)
The 1.0.15 testrun is not yet finished, but I think it is
simply reproducable by running nsim and uclibcng-testrunner.sh. ARC has between 28-30 failures even with latest
binutils/gcc
Latest here is pretty overloaded :-) We had 2016.03 release recently and then
there's bleeding edge binutils atleast which is tracking pretty close to upstream
binutils.
What exact versions of these tools are you using.
31 May
31 May
4:15 a.m.
Hi,
Waldemar Brodkorb wrote,
Hi,
Waldemar Brodkorb wrote,
Here are the 1.0.15 results:
http://tests.embedded-test.org/uClibc-ng/1.0.15/
best regards
Waldemar
Hi Vineet,
Vineet Gupta wrote,
Nsim is nice to script, but the performance
is pretty bad. Running the testsuite takes for the four combinations
(arc700,archs,little and big mode) mostly the same time as
running all the other tests in Qemu :)
1 CORE 100 % CPU...
Would be NSIM Pro faster? On Sunday 29 May 2016 01:30 AM, Waldemar Brodkorb
wrote:
I am using 2016.03. I wanted to say latest release :=)
The 1.0.15 testrun is not yet finished, but I think it is
simply reproducable by running nsim and uclibcng-testrunner.sh. ARC has between 28-30 failures even with latest
binutils/gcc
Latest here is pretty overloaded :-) We had 2016.03 release recently and then
there's bleeding edge binutils atleast which is tracking pretty close to upstream
binutils.
What exact versions of these tools are you using. 
3:58 p.m.
Hi Waldemar,
On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 06:15 +0200, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote:
Hi,
Waldemar Brodkorb wrote,
Thank you so much for doing that, appreciate it a lot!
I'm wondering if there's a reason why did you use Linux 4.4
instead of latest (4.6)? Since we push all out stuff upstream
chances are some failures won't happen with more recent kernel.
Also from the logs it's not clear what tools were used?
Was it latest stable arc-2016.03, previous arc-2015.12?
I'd like to have this information to narrow down investigation of
failure reasons.
-Alexey
Hi,
Waldemar Brodkorb wrote,
Here are the 1.0.15 results:
http://tests.embedded-test.org/uClibc-ng/1.0.15/
Hi Vineet,
Vineet Gupta wrote,
Nsim is nice to
script, but the performance
is pretty bad. Running the testsuite takes for the four combinations
(arc700,archs,little and big mode) mostly the same time as
running all the other tests in Qemu :)
1 CORE 100 % CPU...
Would be NSIM Pro faster?
On Sunday 29 May 2016 01:30 AM, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote:
>
> ARC has between 28-30 failures even with latest binutils/gcc
Latest here is pretty overloaded :-) We had 2016.03 release recently and then
there's bleeding edge binutils atleast which is tracking pretty close to upstream
binutils.
What exact versions of these tools are you using.
I am using 2016.03. I wanted to
say latest release :=)
The 1.0.15 testrun is not yet finished, but I think it is
simply reproducable by running nsim and uclibcng-testrunner.sh.
1 Jun
1 Jun
5:52 p.m.
Hi Alexey,
Alexey Brodkin wrote,
Hi Waldemar,
On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 06:15 +0200, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote:
Normally I try to run with latest LTS kernel for the testing.
I updated ARC tests to use 4.6. (one failure disappeared)
Hi,
Waldemar Brodkorb wrote,
Thank you so much for doing that, appreciate it a lot!
I'm wondering if there's a reason why did you use Linux 4.4
instead of latest (4.6)? Since we push all out stuff upstream
chances are some failures won't happen with more recent kernel.
Hi,
Waldemar Brodkorb wrote,
Here are the 1.0.15 results:
http://tests.embedded-test.org/uClibc-ng/1.0.15/
Hi Vineet,
Vineet Gupta wrote,
>
> On Sunday 29 May 2016 01:30 AM, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote:
> >
> > ARC has between 28-30 failures even with latest binutils/gcc
> Latest here is pretty overloaded :-) We had 2016.03 release recently and then
> there's bleeding edge binutils atleast which is tracking pretty close to
upstream
> binutils.
>
> What exact versions of these tools are you using.
I am using 2016.03. I wanted to say latest release :=)
The 1.0.15 testrun is not yet finished, but I think it is
simply reproducable by running nsim and uclibcng-testrunner.sh.
Nsim is nice to
script, but the performance
is pretty bad. Running the testsuite takes for the four combinations
(arc700,archs,little and big mode) mostly the same time as
running all the other tests in Qemu :)
1 CORE 100 % CPU...
Would be NSIM Pro faster? Also from the logs it's not clear what tools were
used?
Was it latest stable arc-2016.03, previous arc-2015.12?
I'd like to have this information to narrow down investigation of
failure reasons.
arc-2016.03 is used here. I will add some information about
OpenADK git version used and GCC/Binutils used for running the stuff
in the future.
best regards
Waldemar
2885
days inactive
2897
days old
10 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Alexey Brodkin -
Khem Raj -
Vineet Gupta -
Waldemar Brodkorb