On 13 February 2008 19:44, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 13 February 2008 16:05, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>> What's the proper way to handle a target I don't have
>>> a simulator or target hardware for? Is there a standard
>>> way to just go through the build sequence, not even
>>> attempt to run anything and still report the results
>>> in way that is meaningful?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, you can build a cross-targeted compiler and should at least get sane
>> results for e.g. the compile tests, only the execute tests actually
>> require a real target.
>>
>>
> I want those to compile also. Compile and link failures would
> matter. Is there a way to make that meaningful?
Well, ...
>> You could always compile "int main() { abort (); }" and supply it as a
>> stand-in for a real simulator if there's a hole in the framework needs
>> plugging :-)
> Or one that printed "*** EXIT code 0
... will do for static link errors. If you wanted to check for runtime
dynamic linking errors, perhaps your script could use the cross binutils to
determine whether every undefined symbol is resolved in the libs and output
"*** EXIT code" followed by an indication?
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
_______________________________________________
DejaGnu mailing list
DejaGnu@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dejagnu
