----- Am 19. Jul 2018 um 17:03 schrieb joel j...@rtems.org:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote:
>
>> For now we don't need to generalize this approach or make any kind of
>> facility like this available outside of testing.
>>
>> (FYI: 0 is a "nop" on some architectures)
>>
>> Gedare
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Sebastian Huber
>> <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>> > I thought about adding a _CPU_Illegal_instruction() function to
>> > <rtems/score/cpu.h>. But, do you want such a toxic function in a header
>> file
>> > or librtemscpu.a? Now it is isolated in the test and can do no harm.
>>
>
> I have wondered if there enough architectural oddities like this in
> the tests where a central place to address them would be helpful
> when porting.
I am not really happy about the use of architecture defines in the tests. I
will add a _CPU_Instruction_illegal() and _CPU_Instruction_no_operation() (used
by testsuites/sptests/spcache01/init.c) to <rtems/score/cpuimpl.h> tomorrow.
>
> Where all do you have to check now when porting?
You always have to check the test results.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
