On 9/8/19 9:47 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 08/08/2019 15:33, Joel Sherrill wrote: >> Hi >> >> If you are subscribed to the build@ mailing list, then you saw the flurry of >> test >> results from over night. I built every variant and ran the test suite with >> RTEMS >> debug on and off. Here are some observations: >> >> + rv64imafd only has one test pass >> + rv64_iamd_medany only has one test pass >> + Generally speaking, 17-19 tests failed or timed out on every variant with >> 551-553 passing. It would be great for someone to mark the tests in the >> tcfg files as expected fails. > > The BSP runs on hardware and simulators.
Interesting. > Some test may pass on real hardware. Sure. > So, marking them as expected fails is not right. Agreed. I expect to see regressions in simulator from time to time so hardware is a only way we can validate our test results. If a BSP can run on both hardware and simulation the hardware results should have precedent over simulation. This means the we tag against the hardware results in this case. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
