psxshm01 and psxshm02 fail on SPARC/erc32

[Joel Sherrill]

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


> On 25 Jan 2017, at 9:33 pm, Gedare Bloom <gedare at rtems.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Sebastian Huber
> <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>> On 25/01/17 04:00, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Joel Sherrill<joel at rtems.org>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Gedare Bloom<gedare at rtems.org>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
get
>>>>>>> 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
be
>> a proper mmap() implementation exist? What is a proper mmap()
implementation
>> 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
be
>> good to gather some use cases. I think Qt uses also mmap() for font
files.
>>
> 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.


Chris
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel at rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20170125/311596f7/attachment-0002.html>