This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Recent simulator patches broke many sims
- From: Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at oarcorp dot com>
- To: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com>
- Cc: "vapier at gentoo dot org" <vapier at gentoo dot org>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 21:13:52 -0500
- Subject: Re: Recent simulator patches broke many sims
- References: <201303242323 dot r2ONNS1m027200 at ignucius dot se dot axis dot com>
On 3/24/2013 6:23 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
From: Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:45:27 +0100
This came in after I was done email last night. My test
run finished overnight with no horribly bad issues. I have no idea
what the make check results should be though and they could be
because I simply ran "make check" with no board specified and
no gcc for the target installed.
This would be no news to *you*, but for the record:
It's not a surprise. I fairly regularly run the gcc tests for RTEMS
and they need a baseboard specified. I knew binutils didn't. And
assumed (incorrectly) that applied to the simulator and gdb
as well.
You need a board (make check RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=$board
with e.g. board=cris-sim). All boards are in "recent"
dejagnu-1.5 IIRC and most in ancient dejagnu-1.4.4. You need
installed binutils (e.g. in some temp location added to PATH for
the duration of the test-run) for each sim configuration as
mentioned. I don't run with target gcc; not needed for the
level of smoke test I'm after and I guess not for this change
either.
I will add this to my testing script for RTEMS targets. Is there somewhere
to email these results like gcc?
There were some unexpected failures but I don't know what "truth"
on that is.
The truth is in the baseline.
Using 7.5.91 for that. Just got home and the build for that is done.
I have saved logs from the test run and will do so with
the run on Mike's patch.
Starting another test run with Mike's patch.
I can put both sets of logs on an ftp server if someone wants to review
them. Guidance on what is a bad number of "unexpected failures" on
a target is appreciated.
You compare against a baseline you create without your patches;
comparing old/new build logs should be sufficient.
Having said all that, I think just a successful *build* of each
sim would be sufficient here, if your grep can find no
sockser-specific tests in the target sim test-suites.
OK. I will follow up with a test results email.
brgds, H-P
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available (256) 722-9985