Re: Recent simulator patches broke many sims

[Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1609 bytes --]

On Tuesday 26 March 2013 15:35:24 Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
> > Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:15:17 +0100
> > 
> > On Tuesday 26 March 2013 13:12:38 Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > i see it the other way.  doing `make check` for all these
> > packages work w/out the user having to dig into esoteric tools
> > (that often times lack documentation, or any real semblance of
> > an entry point).
> > 
> > for binutils/gcc/etc..., there are plenty of
> > compile/link/etc... tests that can be done without needing to
> > know about a board.  the sim is special in that testing it
> > requires running code,
> 
> Thinking you're good without running any runnnable tests?
> I guess we have to agree to disagree here.

i didn't say that.  i did say that quite a significant chunk of functionality 
can be exercised w/out executing code.  requiring people have to a full stack 
setup to do even basic testing is wrong.  no one writes 100% of their changes, 
then compiles it, then runs it.  people are a lot more iterative and having 
graduated level of testing enables that workflow.

> > so it's entirely reasonable for the
> > default `make check` to setup a state where the tests actually
> > work.
> 
> You know, if someone went to do the work to provide a default
> (overridable) target-board for all cross *-elf et al targets at
> the toplevel, I wouldn't mind.

cris is the only target that i see today that is failing to work with sane 
defaults "out of the box".  i don't see a global init being necessary (or even 
useful).
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]