On 06/05/2020 10:41, chr...@rtems.org wrote:
From: Chris Johns<chr...@rtems.org>
Updates #2962
---
bsps/powerpc/psim/config/psim-testsuite.tcfg | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 bsps/powerpc/psim/config/psim-testsuite.tcfg
diff --git a/bsps/powerpc/psim/config/psim-testsuite.tcfg
b/bsps/powerpc/psim/config/psim-testsuite.tcfg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..b0d2a05086
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bsps/powerpc/psim/config/psim-testsuite.tcfg
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+#
+# PSIM RTEMS Test Database.
+#
+# Format is one line per test that is_NOT_ built.
+#
+
+expected-fail: fsimfsgeneric01
+expected-fail: block11
+expected-fail: rbheap01
+expected-fail: termios01
+expected-fail: ttest01
+expected-fail: psx12
+expected-fail: psxchroot01
+expected-fail: psxfenv01
+expected-fail: psximfs02
+expected-fail: psxpipe01
+expected-fail: spextensions01
+expected-fail: spfatal31
+expected-fail: spfifo02
+expected-fail: spmountmgr01
+expected-fail: spprivenv01
+expected-fail: spstdthreads01
I don't think these tests are expected to fail. If they fail, then there
is a bug somewhere.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
