psxshm01 and psxshm02 fail on SPARC/erc32

Joel Sherrill joel at
Thu Jan 26 00:13:41 UTC 2017

On Jan 25, 2017 5:04 PM, "Chris Johns" <chrisj at> wrote:

> On 25 Jan 2017, at 9:33 pm, Gedare Bloom <gedare at> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Sebastian Huber
> <sebastian.huber at> wrote:
>> On 25/01/17 04:00, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Joel Sherrill<joel at>  wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Gedare Bloom<gedare at>
>>>>>>> Yes. They should fail with MAP_FAILED until we get a proper mmap().
>>>>>>> This can be either detected, or the test can be augmented until we
>>>>>>> mmap support for shm objects done.
>>>>> When you say augmented, you mean with an implementation of the
>>>>> adapter layer you defined that uses malloc() and knows a few names?
>>> I mean to ignore/expect the MAP_FAILED return from mmap and terminate
>>> gracefully.
>> In case MAP_FAILED is currently the expected return value on all
>> architectures, then this should be expected by the test. When will there
>> a proper mmap() implementation exist? What is a proper mmap()
>> for RTEMS at all?
> Timeline is not certain. I hope within 2 months.
>> I used mmap() on some GUI library to speed up the font initialization and
>> simply mapped read-only font files (IMFS memfiles) via mmap(). It would
>> good to gather some use cases. I think Qt uses also mmap() for font
> I know that mmap'ing files was a use case before. I have old code from
> Chris to support it, and intend to extend/re-implement that support to
> also provide mmap support for shm objects.

Why not tag the test as "excepted fail" in the .tcfg file for all archs?
All testing frame works need to be updated to handle the new message at the
start of the test and either report the excepted fail did fail or it
passed, requiring we update the .tcfg file.

Is this a failure on a single BSP or all? I got the impression it was
currently failing on all and was expected to until Gedare got the backends
working for our use cases.

How so we deal with this?

I prefer tests do not mask a failure when it exists and we should be or are
in the process of fixing it.

I agree.

devel mailing list
devel at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the devel mailing list