From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9355 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2013 02:14:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 9270 invoked by uid 89); 25 Mar 2013 02:13:59 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from oarmail.oarcorp.com (HELO OARmail.OARCORP.com) (67.63.146.244) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 02:13:56 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.14] (24.96.88.41) by OARmail.OARCORP.com (192.168.2.2) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 21:13:53 -0500 Message-ID: <514FB2E0.40204@oarcorp.com> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 07:39:00 -0000 From: Joel Sherrill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hans-Peter Nilsson CC: "vapier@gentoo.org" , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: Recent simulator patches broke many sims References: <201303242323.r2ONNS1m027200@ignucius.se.axis.com> In-Reply-To: <201303242323.r2ONNS1m027200@ignucius.se.axis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-03/txt/msg00906.txt.bz2 On 3/24/2013 6:23 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: >> From: Joel Sherrill >> 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