On 05/10/2020 15:30, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 8:05 AM Sebastian Huber
<sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
<mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>> wrote:
On 05/10/2020 14:56, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Hi
>
> The build sweep completed overnight and there were a lot of BSPs
which
> did not build to completion. This is the summary:
>
> BSPs: 192
> Total: 1745 all-bsps-log.txt
> Passed: 1532
> Failed: 212
>
> Failed autoconf: 178
> Failed waf: 34
> Failed (NOSMP): 78
>
> The full summary with one line results per build is attached.
>
> A breakdown per architecture is:
>
> 66 arm
> 12 powerpc
> 114 riscv
> 16 sparc
> 4 x86_64
>
> Execution time of the entire sweep on an 8 core Xeon. This is a
mix of
> autoconf, waf, and scripting:
>
> 356304.80user 89111.84system 41:43:26elapsed 296%CPU
> (0avgtext+0avgdata 184740maxresident)k
> 6859544inputs+3400037288outputs
(6432major+33833619401minor)pagefaults
> 0swaps
>
> It looks like there is a lot to resolve before the switchover
can occur.
I am not sure if it is really worth to fix the Autoconf/Automake
issues.
We have RTEMS 5 for a comparison. The real issues in the build are
exposed when you run the tests. The linker command files, custom
start
files, boot loader support, and BSP options are the things which are
likely broken.
I think a lot of those were testopts.h which you fixed. Thanks.
No matter what you think of autoconf, there are 34 waf builds failing.
I haven't been through the log to see if those all fail with autoconf but
verifying 34 configurations fail in the same way on the two build systems
is too much to do IMO. Better to fix the underlying issue and get close to
zero build failures.
I'm willing to accept some failures but I also think you can't wave your
hands and say it doesn't matter. We will switch to waf but the results
will be much much closer before I agree. I will eventually be doing a
similar build of 5 because I wasn't making this kind of sweep until
starting
to look at waf v autoconf.
I am not arguing over the waf failures. I think build runs with
RTEMS_DEBUG enabled surfaced some issues. I didn't build with this
option so far, but I will do an overnight run with this option.
I am not sure if it is worth the trouble to fix the Autoconf/Automake
test states for RTEMS 6.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
