On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 8:36 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> 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 just started another sweep since testopts.h is likely the cause of most of the autoconf failures. > > I am not sure if it is worth the trouble to fix the Autoconf/Automake > test states for RTEMS 6. > Adding one line to a tcfg vs tracking why the builds are different. I see fixing these as a no-brainer. Harder issues are another question. --joel
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
