| Message ID | 1463727387-26624-1-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> wrote: > From: Cupertino Miranda <cmiranda@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@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@uclibc.org > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
On Friday 20 May 2016 12:57 PM, Khem Raj wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Vineet Gupta > <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> wrote: >> From: Cupertino Miranda <cmiranda@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@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 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. > >> --rpnt; >> do { >> Elf32_Addr *const reloc_addr = (void *) (load_off + (++rpnt)->r_offset); >> -- >> 2.5.0 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> uClibc mailing list >> uClibc@uclibc.org >> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> wrote: >> This is ok > > Is this is question no, its a comment. I know its a rela ABI
Hi, Vineet Gupta wrote, > From: Cupertino Miranda <cmiranda@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@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.uClibc-ng-1.0.14 Thanks Waldemar
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
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. best regards Waldemar
Hi, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote, > 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? best regards Waldemar
Hi, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote, > Hi, > Waldemar Brodkorb wrote, > > > 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? Here are the 1.0.15 results: http://tests.embedded-test.org/uClibc-ng/1.0.15/ best regards Waldemar
Hi Waldemar, On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 06:15 +0200, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > Hi, > Waldemar Brodkorb wrote, > > > > > Hi, > > Waldemar Brodkorb wrote, > > > > > > > > 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? > Here are the 1.0.15 results: > http://tests.embedded-test.org/uClibc-ng/1.0.15/ 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 Alexey, Alexey Brodkin wrote, > Hi Waldemar, > > On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 06:15 +0200, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > > Hi, > > Waldemar Brodkorb wrote, > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > Waldemar Brodkorb wrote, > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > Here are the 1.0.15 results: > > http://tests.embedded-test.org/uClibc-ng/1.0.15/ > > 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. Normally I try to run with latest LTS kernel for the testing. I updated ARC tests to use 4.6. (one failure disappeared) > 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
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);