Re: Recent simulator patches broke many sims

[Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com>]

How about a commit so the other Joel can release?

--joel
RTEMS

On 3/26/2013 12:12 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>> From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
>> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:25:39 +0100
> On Sunday 24 March 2013 19:23:28 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:
>>
>> 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.
>> that's not entirely true.  many (all but cris?)
> I don't think it's different but I don't plan to test without...
>
>> sims run &
>> pass just fine without needing to explicitly pass magic flags.
> It is entirely true that when a board is specified, all work.
>
> Now that you mention it, someone *did* do some changes to allow
> simulator tests to run without specifying a board - IIRC in some
> situations, assuming no special linker flags or such needed and
> no compiler toolchain (or no flags or libraries using simulator
> hooks).  Reading ChangeLogs it seems it was you, on 2010-04-26.
>
>> i know the Blackfin and frv sims can build & run pretty much
>> all their tests w/out requiring board flags.
>>
>> imo, requiring manual board selection like this is archaic for
>> no good reason.
> One good reason IMO is that when specifying a board, all
> toolchain parts test alike, rather than sim (after 2010-04-26)
> being a special case (and binutils, mostly for not needing to
> run things to avoid FAILs or hanging tests).
>
>> i never test sims with specific flags, nor do i plan on starting.  `make check-
>> sim` is my limit of testing.
> I guess by "never" you don't refer to the time before
> 2010-04-26. :)  *Before* the mentioned change, you *had* to, or
> all sim runs would hang, which arguably wasn't very graceful...
>
> 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