GCC version for RTEMS 6?

[Chris Johns]

On 4/5/2022 3:54 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 04/05/2022 02:14, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 3/5/2022 4:56 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> Are there any posted test results?
> 
> I did only local test runs on simulators so far.
> 

I have posted some test results for the erc32 on SIS, zynq on qemu and
ultrascale on hardware:

https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/build/2022-May/033152.html
https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/build/2022-May/033153.html
https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/build/2022-May/033154.html

This covers SPARC on a simulator, ARM 32 bit on qemu and ARM 64bit on hardware.

- There are some new warnings which is expected

- erc32

It has 3 new failures compared to the test results posted by Joel earlier this
month. They are:

    crypt01.exe
    spintrcritical23.exe
    minimum.exe

- arm

This seems fine. I do not have a base line to compare. The tester seemed to
crash if the log and log mode options are not specified.

- aarch64 bsps

These BSPs generated lots of warnings in the testsuite due to this line:

 https://git.rtems.org/rtems/tree/bsps/aarch64/include/bsp/start.h#n175

The warning is about comparing arrays. I have not looked deeper.

The aarch64 test results are very good. I have not tested the Versal (A72) but I
will tomorrow test libbsd on that that architecture. There are 3 failures:

 malloc04.exe
 psxconfig01.exe
 ts-validation-no-clock-0.exe

The only one I am not sure about it the last one.

Conclusion:

I think the results show we can move to gcc12. There are some rough edges
related to warnings we need to clean up and I am sure they will addressed.

Sebastian, if you wish to make the change I am ok but I ask if you are OK with
the testing solution I posted could you please push that patch and make the
change on it?

Thanks
Chris