From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31148 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2012 21:29:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 31122 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Feb 2012 21:29:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:28:50 +0000 Received: from nat-dem.mentorg.com ([195.212.93.2] helo=eu2-mail.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1S12h7-0005zX-5S from Thomas_Schwinge@mentor.com ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:28:49 -0800 Received: from feldtkeller.schwinge.homeip.net ([172.30.64.147]) by eu2-mail.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 22:28:47 +0100 From: Thomas Schwinge To: Kaz Kojima Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, kevinb@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Simulator testing for sh and sh64 In-Reply-To: <20120223.084253.159796243.kkojima@rr.iij4u.or.jp> References: <87zkca9azw.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120222093929.7e86fba2@mesquite.lan> <87wr7e8y60.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120223.084253.159796243.kkojima@rr.iij4u.or.jp> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.9-101-g81dad07 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:38:00 -0000 Message-ID: <8762ev7wfm.fsf@schwinge.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-02/txt/msg00592.txt.bz2 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 1097 Hi! On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:42:53 +0900, Kaz Kojima wro= te: > Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Kaz, is my understanding correct, that I simply use sh64-elf as target, > > and again the sh-sim board? Should I be setting a specific CPU when > > configuring GCC, or any other customization? >=20 > I used sh64-sim board for sh64-elf. sh64-sim.exp baseboard can > be seen in >=20 > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/dejagnu/2008-02/msg00056.html I gave both sh-sim and sh64-sim a try, and -- if I'm reading correctly between all the noise -- there isn't really much difference in the testresults depending on which of the two is being used. > > This means, for sh-elf sim testing, we have a bit too many failures in > > GCC and GDB, and some ld test harness issue. For sh64-elf we have a GCC > > trunk ICE, some section overlap issue, and even more GDB issues. >=20 > Yep. About sh64, I had used sh64-linux as my testing target, but > unfortunately that real sh64 system stopped working after the earthquake. Ouch. :-/ Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Thomas --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-length: 489 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPSAEOAAoJENuKOtuXzphJ2rQH/1kjGWh15jLz1WQL+P+tlw9u Tpi7G9oK8SVMfWo4qAVfKtizAC3wtHpPr8K2YSy1WSIecpg8mVnTvVIZwXkMf5MC fkGTOIlXZfD7bguRaw61yFhn511FGPQ0wqlZFXkQ5LM6lTeY3zldux3Q7wVEjA6Z PnthDK4+epF+0lAb5QhaiDp36b8Kvu4AzO2zOwPCa/sTu4xww9sGfxdnNQ+JdnAr wKDOaqh0fvUWfPBknWm7z18UkciA0cjtvvcS0XhqSiGb0MX5DC1dVM8ygBrrFZUn bYlQDY85qlcCA0d6JcRhbI2Lx+0fxKSAPZl6ezaqYpxb8Y8OO9X4ns53e7kFBjc= =xEAe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--