Re: whetstone test

[Sergei Gavrikov <sergei dot gavrikov at gmail dot com>]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Sergei Gavrikov wrote:
> John Dallaway wrote:
> > Sergei Gavrikov wrote:
> > > Can you, please, check copyright header for that whetstone.c (1.2)
> > > from NetBSD packages?
> > > 
> > > IANAL and I would withdraw my questions if NetBSD trunk is not
> > > (C)-pass.
> > 
> > IANAL either.
> > 
> > I note that we _do_ have a precedent for including benchmark code
> > with no stated copyright and licensing terms. Namely, the dhrystone
> > test:
> > 
> > http://ecos.sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/ecos/packages/kernel/current/tests/dhrystone.c?rev=1&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&cvsroot=ecos
> 
> Yep, I did take a look on the dhrystone's header in CVS at that moment
> and I thought, Why not have the same reservation about whetstone test,
> but still...
> 
> > In my opinion, including a whetstone test adapted from the original
> > whets.c code from http://www.roylongbottom.org.uk/whets.c would be
> > acceptable (avoiding other versions with company copyright notices).
> > Do any of the other maintainers have an opinion on this?
> 
> > I would be inclined to place the test alongside the dhrystone test
> > in the kernel package with similar pre-processor tests for correct
> > configuration of eCos, similar implementation of dtime() and similar
> > use of __ECOS__ to annotate eCos-specific changes. I would also
> > suggest #ifdefs allowing the test to build both with and without
> > libm since only two of the test sections (N5, N8) appear to require
> > libm.
> 
> Thank you for your expert opinion.
> 
> If other maintainers would have no objection on the source of the test
> I would adapt its source code for eCos environment/needs, test and
> post a result patch to eCos Bugzilla registrar.

Hi All,
hi John,

As we are not lawyers :-), I followed the established precedent by the
'eCos/Red Hat' for dhrystone test (as John suggested). I do not know
whether it was appropriate here, well, I set the next preamble:

//=============================================================================
//####UNSUPPORTEDBEGIN####
//
// -------------------------------------------
// This source file has been contributed to eCos. It may have been changed
// slightly to provide an interface consistent with those of other files.
//
// The functionality and contents of this file is supplied "AS IS"
// without any form of support and will not necessarily be kept up
// to date by eCos Maintainers.
//
// The style of programming used in this file may not comply with the
// eCos programming guidelines. Please do not use as a base for other
// files.
//
// All inquiries about this file, or the functionality provided by it,
// should be directed to the 'ecos-discuss' mailing list (see
// http://ecos.sourceware.org/ecos/intouch.html for details).
//
// -------------------------------------------
//
//####UNSUPPORTEDEND####
//=============================================================================
// Converted DOS line terminators to UNIX ones, changed a little to avoid
// compilation warnings.
// The file was found at:
// HTTP www.roylongbottom.org.uk/whets.c
//=============================================================================

The fixes against dos2unix'ed original (including above banner) were:

whets.c |  162 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 160 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

The test expands a set of eCos kernel tests (my testing was done for
ARM/i386 targets).

If your opinion - *We should not create new precedents*, then I simply
will build EPK and frozen it. If the test can be a useful addition, I
will post it to eCos Bugzilla.

Thank you for your point of view, thanks John for his preview, suggests
and the link. And of course, thanks to Roy for his benchmark program.

Sergei