--
Chromium OS Developers mailing list: chromiu...@chromium.org
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-os-dev?hl=en
On May 10, 2012 1:49 PM, "Micah Catlin" <mic...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Ideally we would have tested the tegra2 build at ToT with this
> toolchain before changing the default.
>
> But at the moment, we're in a situation where version 0.26 of the
> various binary components (such as
> opengles-bin-0.0.26.ebuild) don't respond to the "USE=hardfp" flag.
> The previous versions (0.24) did support it, which is probably where
> the toolchain team was doing their testing.
>
> Since we can't roll back to 0.24 (due to 0.26 being the first which
> support X abi 12) we're going to have to go forward with new ebuilds
> that select the hardfp binaries. Nvidia has (just this week) posted
> some release-candidate quality drivers built for hardfp, so there's a
> chance of getting this done quickly
Why dont we mark the tegra2 builders not important right now? And just get it enough to build.
.
| Peter Mayo | | Waterloo | | pete...@google.com | | 519-880-3439 |
On May 10, 2012 1:55 PM, "Anush Elangovan(அனுஷ்)" <an...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>
> On May 10, 2012 1:49 PM, "Micah Catlin" <mic...@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Ideally we would have tested the tegra2 build at ToT with this
> > toolchain before changing the default.
> >
> > But at the moment, we're in a situation where version 0.26 of the
> > various binary components (such as
> > opengles-bin-0.0.26.ebuild) don't respond to the "USE=hardfp" flag.
> > The previous versions (0.24) did support it, which is probably where
> > the toolchain team was doing their testing.
> >
> > Since we can't roll back to 0.24 (due to 0.26 being the first which
> > support X abi 12) we're going to have to go forward with new ebuilds
> > that select the hardfp binaries. Nvidia has (just this week) posted
> > some release-candidate quality drivers built for hardfp, so there's a
> > chance of getting this done quickly
>
> Why dont we mark the tegra2 builders not important right now? And just get it enough to build.
FYI: this is a run time failure which is being addressed in parallel to getting the tree in shape.
On May 10, 2012 1:59 PM, "Zelidrag Hornung" <zeli...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Anush,
>
> Why have you guys done this toolkit change without assuring that everything really worked first?
There were specific instructions given to rolling out the tool chain (i.e involving build team to roll it out properly ). However these were ignored and the cl landed before the infrastructure was prepped up, leading to a domino effect of trying to revive the situation.
Tegra2 is a best effort right now since it is actually forked already and is dragging us behind. But we hope it will be back in some working form in parallel
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Chris Sosa <so...@chromium.org> wrote:http://code.google.com/p/chromium-os/issues/detail?id=26231
> Agreed. It would especially like to see if we could file any tasks on
> the build team to make testing such migrations easier.
Toolchain team has been asking for a way to gate their changes with a
CQ (ish) thing. If we can get that it would be great.