This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
[RFC] Backport of workaround for cortex-a53 erratum 843419 to 2.24
- From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>
- To: Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 19:34:15 -0300
- Subject: [RFC] Backport of workaround for cortex-a53 erratum 843419 to 2.24
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
Hi,
I have prepared a patchset to backport the workaround for cortex-a53 erratum 843419 [1]
to 2.24 branch and I would like to know which the correct procedures to push them
upstream. They backport compromise the following patches:
6186551 Implement branch over stub section
d9ced15 Remove padding before stub sections
357d152 Adjust veneer count
fc6d53b Factor out _bfd_aarch64_get_stub_for_link_section.
30068a6 Refactor section_group[] representation
5421cc6 Refactor generation of 835769 workaround stubs.
e572930 Use _bfd_aarch64_add_stub_entry_in_group
c53ed7c [OBV] Fix build -- missing ';'
35fee8b Factor out _bfd_aarch64_erratum_835769_stub_name
13f622e Factor out _bfd_aarch64_resize_stubs()
6658567 Factor stub creation code into _bfd_aarch64_create_stub_section
ef85752 Factor out common behaviour between elf_aarch64_create_or_find_stub_sec
2144188 Flip sense of erratum_835769_scan
4c77202 Drop unused argument to elf_aarch64_create_or_find_stub_sec
9b9971a Remove unused variable
e2cdef4 Remove dead code
8ef229f Removing unused functions
c8f89a3 Remove Load/Store register (unscaled immediate) alias
4106101 Workaround for Cortex A53 erratum 843419
Which minor adjustments. For other GNU project I contribute, GLIBC, it is up to
release manager to allow or not bugfixes to previous releases. Also, should I send
the patches upstream for evaluation as usual? Also, should I post in the format
of list ([xx/xx] ...) or a inline version attached is suffice?
[1] https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2015-03/msg00445.html