I am not sure a full-blown chroot is necessary, especially in light of the limited disk space on these systems. There is already a support request for the installation of the armhf/multilib compiler packages. Those bring in the necessary basic libs (libc, libstdc++, etc) as package dependencies. That should (based on my use of a similar setup within QEMU) be sufficient to compile and run ARMHF and THUMB executables.
-Paul On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan <raman...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Torbjörn Granlund <t...@gmplib.org> wrote: > > Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> writes: > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 05:30:28PM +0200, Torbjörn Granlund wrote: > > > Laurent GUERBY <laur...@guerby.net> writes: > > > > > > We're pleased to announce that four new servers running AArch64 8 > core > > > processors are now available in the GCC compile farm (1): gcc113 to > > > gcc116.fsffrance.org. The machines have been donated by ARM (2) > hosted > > > and configured by OSUOSL (3). > > > > > > Nice. > > > > > > Which processor core do these use? > > > > APM X-Gene "Potenza". > > > > > I tried to figure this out with some searches, but alas I came up > with > > > no information. > > > > xxd /proc/device-tree/cpus/cpu@000/compatible > > > > > Specifically, is it Cortex-A53, A57, or A72, or is it some > independently > > > developed core? > > > > > > It is clear the the CPUs run at 2.4 GHz and not 1.6 GHz as > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm claims. > > > > That isn't clear at all; what test did you use? > > > > A tight loop in assembly code. Aside from loop control, I use a > > dependent chain of plain instructions, and measure the delta as I change > > the count of dependent instructions. > > > > Modern pilelines are complex, so the counts might fluctuate bit. These > > didn't; 3 dependent instructions took 3 2.4 GHz cycles, 4 dependent > > instructions took 4 2.4 GHz cycles, etc. > > I remember being told these were 1.6GHz machines when we arranged for > these to be delivered - will double check. > > I plan to set up armhf chroots in the coming weeks (read spare time) > that developers can access using schroot on these machines as this > would give folks access to a fast machine for aarch32 development too. > Do people feel strongly against doing so ? > > > Thanks, > Ramana > > > > > > > > (To exclude zany "Turbo" modes, I loaded all 8 cores.) > > > > > > -- > > Torbjörn > > Please encrypt, key id 0xC8601622 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gcc-cfarm-users mailing list > > Gcc-cfarm-users@gna.org > > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gcc-cfarm-users > > _______________________________________________ > Gcc-cfarm-users mailing list > Gcc-cfarm-users@gna.org > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gcc-cfarm-users > -- Paul H. Hargrove phhargr...@lbl.gov Computer Languages & Systems Software (CLaSS) Group Computer Science Department Tel: +1-510-495-2352 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fax: +1-510-486-6900
_______________________________________________ Gcc-cfarm-users mailing list Gcc-cfarm-users@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gcc-cfarm-users
