BSP Build Sweep Report (5 Oct)
sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
Mon Oct 5 13:36:16 UTC 2020
On 05/10/2020 15:30, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 8:05 AM Sebastian Huber
> <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
> <mailto:sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de>> wrote:
> On 05/10/2020 14:56, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > Hi
> > The build sweep completed overnight and there were a lot of BSPs
> > did not build to completion. This is the summary:
> > BSPs: 192
> > Total: 1745 all-bsps-log.txt
> > Passed: 1532
> > Failed: 212
> > Failed autoconf: 178
> > Failed waf: 34
> > Failed (NOSMP): 78
> > The full summary with one line results per build is attached.
> > A breakdown per architecture is:
> > 66 arm
> > 12 powerpc
> > 114 riscv
> > 16 sparc
> > 4 x86_64
> > Execution time of the entire sweep on an 8 core Xeon. This is a
> mix of
> > autoconf, waf, and scripting:
> > 356304.80user 89111.84system 41:43:26elapsed 296%CPU
> > (0avgtext+0avgdata 184740maxresident)k
> > 6859544inputs+3400037288outputs
> > 0swaps
> > It looks like there is a lot to resolve before the switchover
> can occur.
> I am not sure if it is really worth to fix the Autoconf/Automake
> We have RTEMS 5 for a comparison. The real issues in the build are
> exposed when you run the tests. The linker command files, custom
> files, boot loader support, and BSP options are the things which are
> likely broken.
> I think a lot of those were testopts.h which you fixed. Thanks.
> No matter what you think of autoconf, there are 34 waf builds failing.
> I haven't been through the log to see if those all fail with autoconf but
> verifying 34 configurations fail in the same way on the two build systems
> is too much to do IMO. Better to fix the underlying issue and get close to
> zero build failures.
> I'm willing to accept some failures but I also think you can't wave your
> hands and say it doesn't matter. We will switch to waf but the results
> will be much much closer before I agree. I will eventually be doing a
> similar build of 5 because I wasn't making this kind of sweep until
> to look at waf v autoconf.
I am not arguing over the waf failures. I think build runs with
RTEMS_DEBUG enabled surfaced some issues. I didn't build with this
option so far, but I will do an overnight run with this option.
I am not sure if it is worth the trouble to fix the Autoconf/Automake
test states for RTEMS 6.
More information about the devel