On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: > > On Jan 5, 2016 4:35 AM, "Sebastian Huber" > <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 04/01/16 03:47, Joel Sherrill wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org >>> <mailto:chr...@rtems.org>> wrote: >>> >>> On 01/04/16 12:55, Joel Sherrill wrote: >>> >>> On SPARC/SIS, the main lesson I learned is that if the executable >>> dropped to something ridiculously small, then something was >>> broken. I >>> had one iteration where hello.exe had 48 bytes of code. :) >>> >>> >>> Nice work. >>> >>> >>> That much was pretty obvious. Why was a problem. :) >>> >>> >>> Any thoughts on how to catch breakages on BSPs we can only link? >>> >>> >>> Can you get a suitable list of functions that must be present in >>> the executable and check they are present with nm? >>> >>> >>> It should be simple if the breakage is between the entry point and the >>> rest of the BSP. If hello does not include bsp_start() or >>> rtems_initialize_data_structures(), then it is known to be broken. This is >>> what broke on sis -- the first 16 instructions of the start code had no >>> dependency on anything else. So the linkages were satisfied and nothing else >>> pulled in. :) >>> >>> I think this is a good thing to try to sweep in for 4.12 since >>> we can >>> easily check 4.11 vs 4.12 for breakages on specific BSPs. >>> >>> >>> So this is a once only check and not something we always check for? >>> >>> >>> Should be one time only. If the linkage between the start code and C code >>> is correct, it will stay correct. Once you get to C code, everything should >>> be magically correct. >>> >>> I think this is simple enough in principle where it could be written up >>> as a series of GCI tasks. One task per BSP given the amount of time. It >>> isn't much editing but I would want >>> >>> (1) patch to make/custom/XXX.cfg >>> >>> (2) the commit message to include: >>> + base size for some tests like hello and ticker (same on all BSPs) >>> + new size for the same tests >>> >>> (3) Confirmation with hello.num posted to GCI task so we can see the >>> symbols ourselves. But they should have checked it. >>> >>> OTOH, one of us could probably sweep the argument changes into the custom >>> files quickly, my build scripts capture the size of the tests already, and >>> we are used to scripting and automated passes. Maybe I should play the next >>> couple of weeks. If someone wants to help, it would be nice to have some. >> >> >> I am in favour to enable this for all BSPs. Basically the linker scripts >> must have the KEEP () directive for the relevant sections. So, for a symbol >> test we should pick up one using the network stack and one using a global >> C++ constructor.About 60 BSPs have test linkage failures now due to size >> overflows. I see this as either edit .tcfg files and ignore tests which >> could actually fit with per section magic or edit the .cfg file and move >> forward. > > One question is about the approach for bsp families with many variants and a > .inc file. It is easy to add the options to the .inc file and cover all > variants. Is that OK with everyone? It sure reduces the effort. > > FWIW the SPARC bsps broke due to a missing dependency from the start code > not C++ or the linker set. This is more what I am concerned about. The ones > you mentioned should be easily checked with a grep on linker scripts. > >> Do we really have to patch all the XXX.cfg files? Maybe wait until we have >> a new build system and add this to a common place? > > At the moment, I can edit ~60 .tcfg or not that many more .cfg/.inc files > and likely solve the problem. I lean to the long-term solution. I don't see > waiting. > > Looking at it another way, this was trialed in 4.11 with sparc BSPs. > Historically, we have precedence for improving some BSPs in one release and > sweeping something in place in the next. Makes sense to do this from that > perspective. > I say write this up as GCI tasks. Probably sweep the linkcmds first to add KEEP directives for each architecture. Then, each architecture can be converted to *-sections as a task. Functional validation should be performed with a simulator where possible, and RTEMS Tester should be used if available.
It might be good to create GCI tasks for students to get RTEMS Tester working for a few simulator targets that are supported? > > --joel > > >> -- >> Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH >> >> Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany >> Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16 >> Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09 >> E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de >> PGP : Public key available on request. >> >> Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@rtems.org > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
