source builder issue (unstable: expat-2.1.0-1 missing)

Chris Johns chrisj at
Wed Mar 19 01:19:53 UTC 2014

On 18/03/2014 5:16 pm, Karel Gardas wrote:
> On 03/17/14 11:23 PM, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 17/03/2014 6:25 pm, Karel Gardas wrote:
>>> Yes, like you I've been also able to build non-"unstable" tools for both
>>> sparc and sparc64. The only reason why I attempted to build unstable
>>> stuff is that both sis and qemu/leon3 have not worked for me. In case of
>>> sis, it looks like a combination of user error where I assumed that
>>> simple:
>> I have been concentrating on stable and the unstable support has rotted
>> a bit. I will return to it once the remaining stable issues are resolved
>> as we need to keep pushing at the up coming gcc releases as well as the
>> releases.
> For me stable is perfectly OK! What I just need to find out is the most
> stable LEON3/SPARC/RTEMS toolchain.

It depends if you need SMP or not. I think SMP needs a release branch. 
Sebastian knows the specifics. I am waiting for the 4.8 branch release 
to happen.

> What you guys generally prefer some
> LEON3/FPGA board or some simulator for it? I'm asking since I've tested
> SIS BSP both with RTEMS tester's sis and sis-run bsp and the results are
> different:
> sis:
> Passed:   465
> Failed:     3
> Timeouts:   6
> Invalid:    1
> -------------
> Total:    475
> sis-run:
> Passed:   197
> Failed:   272
> Timeouts:   3
> Invalid:    3
> -------------
> Total:    475
> The RTEMS tools built with source-builder on Sunday, the RTEMS code
> obtained from git also on Sunday. Is this perhaps some issue with
> command line sis tool I've already noted in this email thread?

Interesting and thanks for using the rtems-test command. There is a 
patch about for the SPARC simulator to fix the output. I am not sure if 
this is included in the gdb build. What is the error ? The log should 
list the details of the tests that are in error. I should mention the 
number of concurrent tests running can effect the results. It is 
typically safe to have a test per core and you can go higher but there 
may be failures.

FYI I have upgraded to FreeBSD 10.0 and I am looking into the gdb with 
python issue and it does not appear to be an easy fix.


More information about the users mailing list