On 27/5/21 12:06 pm, Joel Sherrill wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2021, 7:03 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org > <mailto: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
What if the work to make it small removes something that is needed? Is minimum suppose to be run and if it is how do we know it was successfull? My point is about the purpose of minimum. If we can never tell a run failed should it be run? If we cannot tell then excluding it as a test to run for all BSPs may be a simpler option that this change. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
