search for: v5t

...O1). > > Is this because of this patch: [llvm] r214959 - ARM: do not generate BLX instructions on Cortex-M CPUs Isn't this just the usual tail call optimisations kicking in at O1? Or is there some problem with this behaviour that I'm missing (both variants seem to be supported on v5t). Cheers. Tim.

...quot;ELR,# S+S$Q+S$Y(#(P.C$T.C T+" S72!S;6)D+W5I M9"YC.G!U<VA?8V]N;E]C='@H,C@V*0H@('!U<VA?8V]N;E]C='@H,"D@.B!C M;VYN7V-T>%]S=&%C:U]N9'@@/2 P"ELR,# S+S$Q+S$Y(#(P.C$T.C T+" S M72!S;6)D+W-E8U]C='@N8SIS971?<V5C7V-T>"@S,CDI"B @<V5T=&EN9R!S M96,@8W1X("@P+" P*2 M('-E8U]C='A?<W1A8VM?;F1X(#T@,0I;,C P,R\Q M,2\Q.2 R,#HQ-#HP-"P@,UT@<VUB9"]S96-?8W1X+F,Z9V5T7V-U<G)E;G1? M9W)O=7!S*#$W,BD*("!G971?8W5R<F5N=%]G<F]U<',Z('5S97(@:7,@:6X@ M,2!G<F]U<',Z(#DY"ELR,# S+S...

...o release. Duncan, I'm not sure me connecting to those boards will help much, since I know very little of the build-bot infrastructure. However, I'd be happy to help setting them up to run the tests we need (with some help in the beginning). >From what you've listed, we only have v5T and one cortex A8. We could provide more A8/A9s, M3s (mBed) boards and also models of all variations possible. Does it make any difference running them here at ARM or locally on OSUOSL? We could easily help them get more boards, too... On a different topic, >From what I understood, this test...

...oss-compile on build slaves. It is possible. We host several build slaves which cross compile. The issue with cross compilation is that tests do support well the cross scenario. We are working on this but it moves slower then we wish it would be. >>From what you've listed, we only have v5T and one cortex A8. We could >provide more A8/A9s, M3s (mBed) boards and also models of all >variations possible. >Does it make any difference running them here at ARM or locally on >OSUOSL? We could easily help them get more boards, too... Llvm lab seems is the right place to put them...

...The only target that was testing LLVM was the one failing, and no target is testing Clang. I'd like to have at least one each. To cover the minimum requirements, would be good to have {v5,v6,v7}x{linux,eabi}x{ARM,Thumb} where appropriate. I think the most important right now are at least one v5T, one A8 and one M3, on both linux (v5, A8) and bare-metal, testing on both ARM and Thumb(1 or 2) each. Is there a way to schedule different tests on the same boards, avoiding collision? Say, while LLVM test runs on A8 bare-metal, Clang tests run on linux and vice versa. cheers, --renato

On 2011-04-08 08:58, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Renato, > >> I was recently investigating the build bot infrastructure and noticed >> that the arm-linux target is failing for quite a long time. I believe >> that it means ARM code is not executed all that often in LLVM tests, >> is that correct? Hi i will summarise the last sucessfull builds by the ARM builder:

...local port 744. debug: connect: Connection refused What I am doing wrong and why is the sshd not accepting connections? Regards -- Kevin Sindhu <kevin at tgivan dot com> Systems Engineer TGI Technologies Inc. Tel: (604) 872-6676 Ext 321 107 E 3rd Avenue Fax: (604) 872-6601 Vancouver,BC V5T 1C7 Canada.

...at links to llvm to test the behavior. Index: lib/Support/TargetParser.cpp =================================================================== --- lib/Support/TargetParser.cpp (revision 257090) +++ lib/Support/TargetParser.cpp (working copy) @@ -401,6 +401,7 @@ .Case("v5", "v5t") .Case("v5e", "v5te") .Case("v6j", "v6") + .Case("v6l", "v6") .Case("v6hl", "v6k") .Cases("v6m", "v6sm", "v6s-m", "v6-m") .Cases(&quo...

...; symbols in it, as reported in /etc/shadow. Is this a well-known bug of OpenSSH version 1.5? I would appreciate any advice. Regards -- Kevin Sindhu Systems Engineer E-Mail: kevin at tgivan.com TGI Technologies Inc. Tel: (604) 872-6676 Ext 321 107 E 3rd Ave, Fax: (604) 872-6601 Vancouver,BC V5T 1C7 Canada.

...;4O<VUB<&%S<W=D(B M1%1$0E]005-35T1?1DE,13TB+W5S<B]L M;V-A;"]S86UB82]P<FEV871E+W-M8G!A<W-W9"YT9&(B#0I5<VEN9R!,24)3 M(#T@+6QG96X@+6QS96,@("UL;G-L#0I#;VUP:6QI;F<@<VUB9"]S97)V97(N M8PT*<VUB9"]S97)V97(N8SH@26X@9G5N8W1I;VX@8&]P96Y?<V]C:V5T<R<Z M#0IS;6)D+W-E<G9E<BYC.C(V.#H@=V%R;FEN9SH@<&%S<VEN9R!A<F<@,R!O M9B!@86-C97!T)R!F<F]M(&EN8V]M<&%T:6)L92!P;VEN=&5R('1Y<&4-"D-O M;7!I;&EN9R!S;6)D+V9I;&5S+F,-"D-O;7!I;&EN9R!S;6)D+V-H9W!A<W-W M9"YC#0I#;VUP:6QI;F&lt...

...lt;V]U<F-E M+F@*8V]N9FEG=7)E.C8T,#(Z(&-H96-K:6YG(&9O<B!L:6YU>"]M;6%N+F@* M8V]N9FEG=7)E.C8T-#(Z(&-H96-K:6YG(&9O<B!S>7,O<V5L96-T+F@*8V]N M9FEG=7)E.C8T.#0Z(&-H96-K:6YG(&9O<B!S>7,O=&EM92YH"F-O;F9I9W5R M93HV-SDP.B!C:&5C:VEN9R!F;W(@<V]C:V5T"F-O;F9I9W5R93HV.#@S.B!C M:&5C:VEN9R!F;W(@:6YE=%]A9&1R"F-O;F9I9W5R93HV.3<V.B!C:&5C:VEN M9R!F;W(@9F1A=&%S>6YC"F-O;F9I9W5R93HW,#(U.B!C:&5C:VEN9R!F;W(@ M9F1A=&%S>6YC(&EN("UL<G0*8V]N9FEG=7)E.C<P.#,Z(&-H96-K:6YG(&9O M<B!F8VYT; IC;V...

I like to compile ssh-3.0.2 on Solaris 2.7 with 64 Bit support in static mode. But I get a fatal error. The compilation with shared libraries is working very fine. Does anyone has ideas to compile OpenSSH cleanly in static mode? gcc -static -Wall -Wpointer-arith -Wno-uninitialized -I. -I. -I/usr/local/include -DETCDIR=\"/etc/ssh\" -D_PATH_SSH_PROGRAM =\"/usr/ssh/bin/ssh\"

...sion + kalimba // Kalimba: generic kalimba }; - enum SubArchType { - NoSubArch, - - ARMSubArch_v8, - ARMSubArch_v7, - ARMSubArch_v7em, - ARMSubArch_v7m, - ARMSubArch_v7s, - ARMSubArch_v6, - ARMSubArch_v6m, - ARMSubArch_v6t2, - ARMSubArch_v5, - ARMSubArch_v5te, - ARMSubArch_v4t, - ARMSubArch_v4 - }; enum VendorType { UnknownVendor, @@ -104,7 +89,8 @@ BGQ, Freescale, IBM, - NVIDIA + NVIDIA, + CSR }; enum OSType { UnknownOS, @@ -164,9 +150,6 @@ /// The parsed arch type. ArchType Arch; -...

...t;"`J M0UA?0S)$7TUE9&EA5'EP90T**D1E9F%U;'1#6%]#,D1?365D:6%4>7!E.B!$ M9694>7!E#0HJ0UA?0S)$7TUE9&EA5'EP92!$9694>7!E+U!R:6YT97(G<R!$ M969A=6QT.B`B)5-#25!01#H@1$9%($UE9&EA5'EP92!0<FEN=&5R)W,B#0HJ M0UA?0S)$7TUE9&EA5'EP92!5<V50<FEN=&5R4V5T=&EN9W,O57-E(%!R:6YT M97(@4V5T=&EN9W,Z("(E4T-)4%!$.B!$1D4@365D:6%4>7!E('5N9&5F:6YE M9"(-"BI#6%]#,D1?365D:6%4>7!E(%!L86EN+U!L86EN("@V-"TQ,#5G<VTI M.B`B)5-#25!01#H@1$9%($UE9&EA5'EP92!0;&%I;B(-"BI#6%]#,D1?365D M:6%4>7!E($AE879Y=V5I9V...

Hello, I found this lurking around the web, and thought people who are running SSH-1.2.27 might be interested. -- Kevin Sindhu <kevin at tgivan dot com> Systems Engineer TGI Technologies Inc. Tel: (604) 872-6676 Ext 321 107 E 3rd Avenue Fax: (604) 872-6601 Vancouver,BC V5T 1C7 Canada. -------------- next part -------------- Welcome Root Kit SSH distribution v5.0 (by Zelea) This version was build on TimeCop's previous SSH RootKit New in this version: - build against ssh-1.2.27 - corrected a bug that prevented wtmp/utmp login when RSA authentication a...

...d looked at openbsd.html and found some errors. Patch attached. Patch for http://www.openssh.com/openbsd.html Hope that helps, Rgds -- Kevin Sindhu <kevin at tgivan dot com> Systems Engineer TGI Technologies Inc. 107 E 3rd Avenue Tel: (604) 872-6676 Ext 321 Vancouver V5T 1C7 Fax: (604) 872-6601 British Columbia, Canada -------------- next part -------------- --- openbsd.html Tue Feb 12 03:32:02 2002 +++ openbsd.html.mod Thu Feb 14 13:43:45 2002 @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ <p> The following versions of OpenSSH are available for putting on your -OpenBSD mac...

Hi Renato, > I was recently investigating the build bot infrastructure and noticed > that the arm-linux target is failing for quite a long time. I believe > that it means ARM code is not executed all that often in LLVM tests, > is that correct? > > We were wondering what kind of support we could give to make sure ARM > code is correct and don't regress, specially before

Hello, Martin > llvm-gcc-4.2-2.5 is failing to build from source on arm, sparc, > powerpc and ia64, only succeeding on i386 and amd64: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=llvm-gcc-4.2;dist=unstable > so it looks like the 2.5 release was never properly tested before it > was published. Unfortunately, ia64 and sparc were never considered as a 'tier-1' targets

On 8/3/09, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: > > Thanks. Do you have fixes for the other ARM bloopers? This is the > > forthcoming Debian version and it's now dying on arm-gnueabi when it > > links cc1-dummy saying > > Please use the current Top-of-the-Tree version. Sorry, that's not an option as I'm trying to fix the Debian

Hi all, I was recently investigating the build bot infrastructure and noticed that the arm-linux target is failing for quite a long time. I believe that it means ARM code is not executed all that often in LLVM tests, is that correct? We were wondering what kind of support we could give to make sure ARM code is correct and don't regress, specially before releases (I know it's a bit late