On 06/05/2020 12:00, Chris Johns wrote:
On 6/5/20 7:35 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
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.
Yes we hope no tests fail but they can and do. Excluding tests because
they fail would be incorrect. In the 5.1 release these bugs are
present so we expect, or maybe it should say, we know the test will
fail. With this change any thing that appears in the failure column is
"unexpected" and that means the user build of the release does not
match the state we "expect" and it is worth investigation by the user.
Without these tests being tagged this way the user would have no idea
where the stand after a build and test run and that would mean we
would have to make sure a release has no failures. I consider that as
not practical or realistic.
Maybe we need another state, e.g. something-is-broken-please-fix-it.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
