On Wed, May 26, 2021, 7:03 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > On 26/5/21 1:52 am, Kinsey Moore wrote: > > The minimum.exe test case is expected to fail as an "invalid" test in > > the tester since it is completely stripped down and does not output the > > normal test header and footer. When fatal error detection support was > > added, this caught minimum.exe and started flagging it as "fatal" > > instead of "invalid". The special-case detection of minimum.exe only > > matched on "invalid" results and not "fatal" results and so began > > flagging minimum.exe as an actual failure.> > > This change adds the special-case handling to the "fatal" test state > > handling. > > Is this the right solution? > > Is minimum.exe suppose to run and not fail? It would seem easy to make a > minimum.exe with nothing in it, ie minimal, that seems to pass. It would > make > great marketing material. > > What happens if minimum fails? I feel minimum needs to be able to run and > not > fail to be a valid minimum. >
It is an empty thread body that doesn't print. I suppose we could add rtems_shutdown_executive(0) if that helps > > Chris > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@rtems.org > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
