I updated the ARM patches to the latest master version. I have to admit
I was pleasantly surprised that going from 2.063 to 2.064 did not cause
any failing test cases in the test suite or failing unit tests. So ARM
on 2.064 is also good to go now and it's probably a good idea to start
merging the fixes.
(Code is here: https://github.com/jpf91/GDC/commits/arm )

One question related to the 2.064 merge: I see one failing test in the
test suite, file runnable/template9.d. It fails with linker errors.
Is this a known problem or could it be the gcc snapshot version
I'm using (gcc-4.9-20131201)? This happens on x86/64 and ARM.

On 9 December 2013 14:25, Johannes Pfau <nospam@example.com> wrote:
> I updated the ARM patches to the latest master version. I have to admit
> I was pleasantly surprised that going from 2.063 to 2.064 did not cause
> any failing test cases in the test suite or failing unit tests. So ARM
> on 2.064 is also good to go now and it's probably a good idea to start
> merging the fixes.
> (Code is here: https://github.com/jpf91/GDC/commits/arm )
>
> One question related to the 2.064 merge: I see one failing test in the
> test suite, file runnable/template9.d. It fails with linker errors.
> Is this a known problem or could it be the gcc snapshot version
> I'm using (gcc-4.9-20131201)? This happens on x86/64 and ARM.


I'll take a look.  I might have included it by accident or forgotten a file.

On 9 December 2013 15:17, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org> wrote:
> On 9 December 2013 14:25, Johannes Pfau <nospam@example.com> wrote:
>> I updated the ARM patches to the latest master version. I have to admit
>> I was pleasantly surprised that going from 2.063 to 2.064 did not cause
>> any failing test cases in the test suite or failing unit tests. So ARM
>> on 2.064 is also good to go now and it's probably a good idea to start
>> merging the fixes.
>> (Code is here: https://github.com/jpf91/GDC/commits/arm )
>>
>> One question related to the 2.064 merge: I see one failing test in the
>> test suite, file runnable/template9.d. It fails with linker errors.
>> Is this a known problem or could it be the gcc snapshot version
>> I'm using (gcc-4.9-20131201)? This happens on x86/64 and ARM.
>
>
> I'll take a look.  I might have included it by accident or forgotten a file.

Ah, it was something completely different.  I introduced a bug
refactoring template/decl emission (via cgraph_get_create_node
(decl)->forced_by_abi).

Just going to relax the rules a little bit so that the backend may remove templates if there are no found calls to them in the cgraph.

Regards
Iain.

On 9 December 2013 16:11, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org> wrote:
> On 9 December 2013 15:17, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org> wrote:
>> On 9 December 2013 14:25, Johannes Pfau <nospam@example.com> wrote:
>>> I updated the ARM patches to the latest master version. I have to admit
>>> I was pleasantly surprised that going from 2.063 to 2.064 did not cause
>>> any failing test cases in the test suite or failing unit tests. So ARM
>>> on 2.064 is also good to go now and it's probably a good idea to start
>>> merging the fixes.
>>> (Code is here: https://github.com/jpf91/GDC/commits/arm )
>>>
>>> One question related to the 2.064 merge: I see one failing test in the
>>> test suite, file runnable/template9.d. It fails with linker errors.
>>> Is this a known problem or could it be the gcc snapshot version
>>> I'm using (gcc-4.9-20131201)? This happens on x86/64 and ARM.
>>
>>
>> I'll take a look.  I might have included it by accident or forgotten a file.
>
> Ah, it was something completely different.  I introduced a bug
> refactoring template/decl emission (via cgraph_get_create_node
> (decl)->forced_by_abi).
>
> Just going to relax the rules a little bit so that the backend may remove templates if there are no found calls to them in the cgraph.
>


Nope, that was not a good idea at all...

On 12/09/2013 06:25 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> I updated the ARM patches to the latest master version. I have to admit
> I was pleasantly surprised that going from 2.063 to 2.064 did not cause
> any failing test cases in the test suite or failing unit tests. So ARM
> on 2.064 is also good to go now and it's probably a good idea to start
> merging the fixes.
> (Code is here: https://github.com/jpf91/GDC/commits/arm )
>
> One question related to the 2.064 merge: I see one failing test in the
> test suite, file runnable/template9.d. It fails with linker errors.
> Is this a known problem or could it be the gcc snapshot version
> I'm using (gcc-4.9-20131201)? This happens on x86/64 and ARM.
>

I would love to play with this, but I have had no luck getting it to build, either with crosstools or as a native build (I think my board is running out of memory, and I know of no way to attach any sort of hard disk to it for swap space).

Today I am going to attempt to build it on my dev box with a crosstools-built gcc, but I don't expect much.

On 14 December 2013 20:21, Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer@utulsa.edu> wrote:
> On 12/09/2013 06:25 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
>>
>> I updated the ARM patches to the latest master version. I have to admit
>> I was pleasantly surprised that going from 2.063 to 2.064 did not cause
>> any failing test cases in the test suite or failing unit tests. So ARM
>> on 2.064 is also good to go now and it's probably a good idea to start
>> merging the fixes.
>> (Code is here: https://github.com/jpf91/GDC/commits/arm )
>>
>> One question related to the 2.064 merge: I see one failing test in the
>> test suite, file runnable/template9.d. It fails with linker errors.
>> Is this a known problem or could it be the gcc snapshot version
>> I'm using (gcc-4.9-20131201)? This happens on x86/64 and ARM.
>>
>
> I would love to play with this, but I have had no luck getting it to build, either with crosstools or as a native build (I think my board is running out of memory, and I know of no way to attach any sort of hard disk to it for swap space).
>

I had a similar problem with my trim slice after upgrading it to 12.04, which has only 1GB memory.  The daft buggers left swap turned off in the kernel, so I had to recompile linux with it enabled.  Got myself a serial cable (saved my life!) to get access to the boot console to first test that the built image work, then voila - I can now compile gcc. \o/

Am Sat, 14 Dec 2013 12:21:06 -0800
schrieb Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer@utulsa.edu>:

> On 12/09/2013 06:25 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> > I updated the ARM patches to the latest master version. I have to
> > admit I was pleasantly surprised that going from 2.063 to 2.064 did
> > not cause any failing test cases in the test suite or failing unit
> > tests. So ARM on 2.064 is also good to go now and it's probably a
> > good idea to start merging the fixes.
> > (Code is here: https://github.com/jpf91/GDC/commits/arm )
> >
> > One question related to the 2.064 merge: I see one failing test in the test suite, file runnable/template9.d. It fails with linker errors. Is this a known problem or could it be the gcc snapshot version I'm using (gcc-4.9-20131201)? This happens on x86/64 and ARM.
> >
> 
> I would love to play with this, but I have had no luck getting it to build, either with crosstools or as a native build (I think my board is running out of memory, and I know of no way to attach any sort of hard disk to it for swap space).
> 
> Today I am going to attempt to build it on my dev box with a crosstools-built gcc, but I don't expect much.

Hi Ellery,

it seems like crosstool-NG can't compile recent gcc-4.9 snapshots. It's not a D or crosstool problem actually, GCC-4.9 for some reason can't bootstrap glibc.

I personally use this branch to test the cross-compiler: https://github.com/jpf91/GDC/commits/arm-old

It's a quick & dirty backport of the arm branch for gcc-4.8. It should work as well as the arm branch (it might produce slightly bigger binaries though, but I couldn't confirm that yet)

Am Sat, 14 Dec 2013 22:16:13 +0000
schrieb Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org>:

> On 14 December 2013 20:21, Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer@utulsa.edu> wrote:
> > On 12/09/2013 06:25 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> >>
> >> I updated the ARM patches to the latest master version. I have to
> >> admit I was pleasantly surprised that going from 2.063 to 2.064
> >> did not cause any failing test cases in the test suite or failing
> >> unit tests. So ARM on 2.064 is also good to go now and it's
> >> probably a good idea to start merging the fixes.
> >> (Code is here: https://github.com/jpf91/GDC/commits/arm )
> >>
> >> One question related to the 2.064 merge: I see one failing test in the test suite, file runnable/template9.d. It fails with linker errors. Is this a known problem or could it be the gcc snapshot version I'm using (gcc-4.9-20131201)? This happens on x86/64 and ARM.
> >>
> >
> > I would love to play with this, but I have had no luck getting it to build, either with crosstools or as a native build (I think my board is running out of memory, and I know of no way to attach any sort of hard disk to it for swap space).
> >
> 
> I had a similar problem with my trim slice after upgrading it to 12.04, which has only 1GB memory.  The daft buggers left swap turned off in the kernel, so I had to recompile linux with it enabled.  Got myself a serial cable (saved my life!) to get access to the boot console to first test that the built image work, then voila - I can now compile gcc. \o/

"Only 1GB" ;-)

I've got a first generation model B Raspberry PI, 256 mb ram (shared with the graphics card). But at least Archlinux works fine on the Raspberry and swap is supported out of the box :-P

On 12/14/2013 02:21 PM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
>
> Hi Ellery,
>
> it seems like crosstool-NG can't compile recent gcc-4.9 snapshots. It's
> not a D or crosstool problem actually, GCC-4.9 for some reason can't
> bootstrap glibc.
>
> I personally use this branch to test the cross-compiler:
> https://github.com/jpf91/GDC/commits/arm-old
>
> It's a quick & dirty backport of the arm branch for gcc-4.8. It should
> work as well as the arm branch (it might produce slightly bigger
> binaries though, but I couldn't confirm that yet)
>

oh, wow. staples. thanks.

heh. 11M hello world. it runs, though.

Am Sat, 14 Dec 2013 18:04:07 -0800
schrieb Ellery Newcomer <ellery-newcomer@utulsa.edu>:

> On 12/14/2013 02:21 PM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ellery,
> >
> > it seems like crosstool-NG can't compile recent gcc-4.9 snapshots. It's not a D or crosstool problem actually, GCC-4.9 for some reason can't bootstrap glibc.
> >
> > I personally use this branch to test the cross-compiler: https://github.com/jpf91/GDC/commits/arm-old
> >
> > It's a quick & dirty backport of the arm branch for gcc-4.8. It should work as well as the arm branch (it might produce slightly bigger binaries though, but I couldn't confirm that yet)
> >
> 
> oh, wow. staples. thanks.
> 
> heh. 11M hello world. it runs, though.

That's actually normal, the GCC-4.9 branch also produces a 11MB hello world. There's a new feature in GCC-4.9 which allows to remove templates from executables in some cases and as it's not supported in GCC-4.8 that could cause a difference.

You can use 'strip' (arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi-strip) to get your 11MB hello world to a reasonable size.