[OE-core] Status Update

Richard Purdie richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org
Tue Apr 29 11:29:35 UTC 2014


On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 09:49 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> Master
> ======
> 
> I've started merging patches in so this has opened for changes. Of note
> so far:
> 
> GCC - I did find a few moments to write most of the patches needed to
> rework our parts of our gcc recipes and continue to improve the
> toolchain which will be valuable as we more forward. The first part of
> these has merged. The second part is out there for review and there are
> some bugs there I need to fix before it merges (meta-ide-support in
> particular). There is a third set of patches I've not cleaned up and
> sent out yet which standardise the toolchain hashes.
> 
> Bitbake - The task scheduling algorithm has a couple of bugs in it which
> I found after noticing some strange behaviour with low numbers of
> threads. This was worth a 7% speedup of our benchmark image build test.
> Unfortunately it was too late to get that into 1.6 but it may make the
> next point release. I also found that git 1.8 is slow for some
> operations and we really want to use 1.9+ (worth around 1 minute on
> linux-yocto kernel build time). Chris has also found what looks like a
> nasty bug in the codeparser cache which is a good thing to find.

B != S - I meant to add here that I merged the B != S patch for
autotools which does have impact for other layers. I did work a while
back to fix up oe-core and the layers the yocto autobuilder tests. We've
held off this for a while and the hope was other layers would get tested
and fixed up. I'm not sure that has happened, particularly in meta-oe as
yet unfortunately. The benefits to B != S are significant in build
accuracy and determinism and I did say I'd merge it after release so
that has now happened.

PRINC - I have dropped the removal of PRINC for this cycle since there
were concerns about that and its probably a little aggressive.

contains - I also have concerns about the contains() changes being a
touch too aggressive and needing a little more soak time. I had assumed
they just standardised references to the function, not removal of the
functions themselves yet. I'm therefore holding off some of the bitbake
side of those changes.

Cheers,

Richard




More information about the Openembedded-core mailing list