GCC version for RTEMS 6?

[Sebastian Huber]

Hello Chris,

thanks for the tests.

On 05/05/2022 11:28, Chris Johns wrote:
> 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

The crypt01 is a long running test.

>      spintrcritical23.exe

I see also sporadic failures in the spintrcritical* tests on this BSP 
independent of the compiler.

>      minimum.exe

The minimum test is an issue on all BSPs since the RTEMS tester has no 
way to figure out what to do since the test has no output. One option 
would be to use ELF files for the tester input with ELF notes for the 
test state, etc.

> 
> - 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.

This can be fixed by using RTEMS_OBFUSCATE_VARIABLE().

> 
> 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.

Ok, good. Lets wait for the GCC 12.1 release.

> 
> 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?

Which patch and change are you referring to?

-- 
embedded brains GmbH
Herr Sebastian HUBER
Dornierstr. 4
82178 Puchheim
Germany
email: sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 16
fax:   +49-89-18 94 741 - 08

Registergericht: Amtsgericht München
Registernummer: HRB 157899
Vertretungsberechtigte Geschäftsführer: Peter Rasmussen, Thomas Dörfler
Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier:
https://embedded-brains.de/datenschutzerklaerung/