On 9/9/20 6:49 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 09/09/2020 02:29, Chris Johns wrote:
>>> This would be enough to address my "HW or which simulator" question.
>> I had created #4072, please update adding the items you would like. We can
>> add
>> anything you like and they can be mandated. There alr
On 9/9/20 6:47 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 09/09/2020 02:36, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 9/9/20 3:13 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>> On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 8:55 PM Chris Johns wrote:
An example using Joel's recent test run (thanks Joel :)). The sparc/leon2
results show no regressions:
On 09/09/2020 02:29, Chris Johns wrote:
[...]
>
>> > Also I am not sure but hopefully the test reports do accurately reflect
>> host OS.
>>
>> There is a "Host" section at the top of the results log? It is just
>> `uname -a`.
>>
>> I think that's sufficient as long as it can distingui
On 09/09/2020 02:29, Chris Johns wrote:
This would be enough to address my "HW or which simulator" question.
I had created #4072, please update adding the items you would like. We can add
anything you like and they can be mandated. There already exist a number of
fields for various transports so
On 09/09/2020 02:36, Chris Johns wrote:
On 9/9/20 3:13 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 8:55 PM Chris Johns wrote:
An example using Joel's recent test run (thanks Joel :)). The sparc/leon2
results show no regressions:
Summary
===
Passed:580
Failed: 0
User I
Hello Chris,
On 07/09/2020 04:55, Chris Johns wrote:
Hello,
I would like to discuss BSP Test results early in the release cycle in the hope
we avoid the last minute issues we encountered with RTEMS 5 and the "expected"
failure state ticket.
I would like to update this section
On 9/9/20 3:13 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 8:55 PM Chris Johns wrote:
>> An example using Joel's recent test run (thanks Joel :)). The sparc/leon2
>> results show no regressions:
>>
>> Summary
>> ===
>>
>> Passed:580
>> Failed: 0
>> User Input: 6
>> E
;mailto:chr...@rtems.org <mailto:chr...@rtems.org>>> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I would like to discuss BSP Test results early in the release cycle
> in
> the hope
> > we avoid the last minute issues w
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:44 AM Chris Johns wrote:
> On 7/9/20 2:16 pm, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 6, 2020, 9:55 PM Chris Johns > <mailto:chr...@rtems.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I would like to discuss
On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 8:55 PM Chris Johns wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to discuss BSP Test results early in the release cycle in the
> hope
> we avoid the last minute issues we encountered with RTEMS 5 and the "expected"
> failure state ticket.
>
>
On 7/9/20 2:16 pm, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 6, 2020, 9:55 PM Chris Johns <mailto:chr...@rtems.org>> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to discuss BSP Test results early in the release cycle in
> the hope
> we avoid the last minut
On Sun, Sep 6, 2020, 9:55 PM Chris Johns wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to discuss BSP Test results early in the release cycle in the
> hope
> we avoid the last minute issues we encountered with RTEMS 5 and the
> "expected"
> failure state ticket.
>
>
Hello,
I would like to discuss BSP Test results early in the release cycle in the hope
we avoid the last minute issues we encountered with RTEMS 5 and the "expected"
failure state ticket.
I would like to update this section ...
https://docs.rtems.org/branches/master/user/testing/
On 2020-03-27 18:49, Joel Sherrill wrote:
I wanted to pass along that Spike appears to be working now from the RSB.
Test results are in the build archive show that 5 or 7 fail on sis but
the
other BSPs tend to have 20-24 failures with some timeouts and invalids. No
idea why. It would be apprec
Hi
I wanted to pass along that Spike appears to be working now from the RSB.
Test results are in the build archive show that 5 or 7 fail on sis but the
other BSPs tend to have 20-24 failures with some timeouts and invalids. No
idea why. It would be appreciated if anyone who knows the RISC-V
could
> On 26 Sep 2018, at 6:44 pm, Sebastian Huber
> wrote:
>
> Hello Daniel,
>
>> On 20/09/2018 08:59, Daniel Hellstrom wrote:
>>> On 2018-09-20 07:32, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> Hello Daniel,
>>>
>>> thanks for your status report. The RSB uses currently GCC 7.3.0 without
>>> patches and the Newl
Hello Daniel,
On 20/09/2018 08:59, Daniel Hellstrom wrote:
On 2018-09-20 07:32, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello Daniel,
thanks for your status report. The RSB uses currently GCC 7.3.0
without patches and the Newlib commit
d13c84eb07e35984bf7a974cd786a6cdac29e6b9.
Thanks for the information, our
On 21/09/2018 19:01, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 21/09/2018 10:57, Chris Johns wrote:
>>> On 21 Sep 2018, at 5:23 pm, Sebastian Huber
>>> wrote:
>>> I did a test run on a N2X of RTEMS version
>>> 4221d932b43094f3aaf4a8dca1aa6bd4db13df4e. There are no test failures (686
>>> tests produced the begin
On 21/09/2018 10:57, Chris Johns wrote:
On 21 Sep 2018, at 5:23 pm, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
I did a test run on a N2X of RTEMS version
4221d932b43094f3aaf4a8dca1aa6bd4db13df4e. There are no test failures (686 tests
produced the begin/end of test message).
Nice.
Could the rtems-test results p
> On 21 Sep 2018, at 5:23 pm, Sebastian Huber
> wrote:
> I did a test run on a N2X of RTEMS version
> 4221d932b43094f3aaf4a8dca1aa6bd4db13df4e. There are no test failures (686
> tests produced the begin/end of test message).
Nice.
Could the rtems-test results please be posted to bui...@rtems
On 20/09/2018 08:59, Daniel Hellstrom wrote:
Hello Sebastian,
On 2018-09-20 07:32, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello Daniel,
thanks for your status report. The RSB uses currently GCC 7.3.0
without patches and the Newlib commit
d13c84eb07e35984bf7a974cd786a6cdac29e6b9.
Thanks for the information,
Hello Sebastian,
On 2018-09-20 07:32, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello Daniel,
thanks for your status report. The RSB uses currently GCC 7.3.0
without patches and the Newlib commit
d13c84eb07e35984bf7a974cd786a6cdac29e6b9.
Thanks for the information, our toolchain was built using
916ef5fb8865f72
Hello Daniel,
thanks for your status report. The RSB uses currently GCC 7.3.0 without
patches and the Newlib commit d13c84eb07e35984bf7a974cd786a6cdac29e6b9.
On 19/09/2018 14:46, Daniel Hellstrom wrote:
Hi,
I just wanted to share the current test status for the GR740 I have
today, using the
Hi,
I just wanted to share the current test status for the GR740 I have
today, using the todays master with some additional test fixes which I
plan to submit shortly. The test have been run both on TSIM and hardware.
Current test results for the RTEMS test-suite with GCC-7.2 toolchain for
th
24 matches
Mail list logo
