Re: Status Update

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

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