BSP Build Sweep Report (5 Oct)

[Sebastian Huber]

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
>     which
>     > 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
>     (6432major+33833619401minor)pagefaults
>     > 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
>     issues.
>     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
>     start
>     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 
> starting
> 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.