On четвъртък, 10 декември 2020 г. 10:24:50 EET Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 6:42 AM Dimitar Dimitrov <dimi...@dinux.eu> wrote: > > On сряда, 9 декември 2020 г. 15:12:49 EET abebeos via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > Essence: > > > > > > I need a confirmation that the testsuite setup as presented in: > > > > > > https://github.com/abebeos/avr-gnu > > > > > > works fine. > > > > > > The problem with the avr target is that the testsuite cannot be run > > > easily, > > > mainly because of the need for a special simulated-target setup, which > > > does > > > not work for avr as documented. This led developers to a dead-end with > > > their non-cc0-avr-backends (the non-cc0 backend is needed thus avr is > > > not > > > dropped from gcc11). > > > > > > I integrated a toolchain/testsetup to be able to run the gcc testsuite > > > against a simulated avr target. > > > > > > I then used this toolchain to test 2 different existent > > > non-cc0-avr-backends (from pipcet and saaadhu, both github). > > > > > > The result is that saaadhu's backend seems to be working 100%. It has > > > identical testsuite results with the existing (but deprecated) > > > cc0-backend, > > > which means that it can be used "as-is" for inclusion in gcc11. > > > > > > Please note that I did this work in context of a bounty @ bountysouce, > > > more > > > information within the issue: > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729#c35 > > > > Hi, > > > > I tested the trees you have given with my own AVR test setup [1]. I > > confirm > > > > your results: > > - saaadhu's tree does not introduce any regressions. > > - pipcet's tree has 142 gcc and 299 g++ regressions (although many of > > them > > > > are duplicates, e.g. same test case with different optimization > > levels). > > > > It's a bit awkward to copy gcc/config/avr into a mainline tree. Looking at > > their github history, both authors made some small changes in other areas. > > I would have prefered to cherry-pick or apply patches. > > > > ================================================= > > baseline beb9afcaf1466996a301c778596c5df209e7913c > > > > === gcc Summary === > > > > # of expected passes 87504 > > # of unexpected failures 1105 > > # of unexpected successes 15 > > # of expected failures 581 > > # of unresolved testcases 16786 > > # of unsupported tests 5370 > > > > === g++ Summary === > > > > # of expected passes 140663 > > # of unexpected failures 7932 > > # of unexpected successes 21 > > # of expected failures 620 > > # of unresolved testcases 8603 > > # of unsupported tests 11305 > > > > ================================================= > > pipcet/avr-ccmode > > > > === gcc Summary === > > > > # of expected passes 87463 > > # of unexpected failures 1221 > > # of unexpected successes 15 > > # of expected failures 581 > > # of unresolved testcases 16799 > > # of unsupported tests 5359 > > > > === g++ Summary === > > > > # of expected passes 140529 > > # of unexpected failures 8205 > > # of unexpected successes 21 > > # of expected failures 620 > > # of unresolved testcases 8607 > > # of unsupported tests 11301 > > > > ================================================= > > saadhu/avr-cc0 > > > > === gcc Summary === > > > > # of expected passes 87504 > > # of unexpected failures 1105 > > # of unexpected successes 15 > > # of expected failures 581 > > # of unresolved testcases 16786 > > # of unsupported tests 5370 > > > > === g++ Summary === > > > > # of expected passes 140663 > > # of unexpected failures 7932 > > # of unexpected successes 21 > > # of expected failures 620 > > # of unresolved testcases 8603 > > # of unsupported tests 11305 > > > > On a side note, I build and test AVR backend in mainline everyday. If > > there is interest from AVR maintainers I can post daily results to > > gcc-testresults@ mailing list. > > I'd appreciate such postings, not necessarily daily (if there are no > changes). Also (as usual) for active release branches (say once a week or > biweekly or even monthly).
I'll start sending biweekly the AVR testresults from all active branches. Yesterday my test results were temporarily held back due to large email size, but eventually reached gcc-testresults@ . I'd like to know if I need to trim them somehow. > > Without any hints on gcc-testresults its hard to asses whether ports > pass some very basic functionality criteria (AVR is neither primary nor > secondary but shipping totally broken ports isn't in our interest). > > Thanks a lot, > Richard. > > > Regards, > > Dimitar > > > > [1] https://github.com/dinuxbg/gnupru/blob/master/testing/buildbot-avr.sh