the organization and naming of the sptests is a mess to figure out what tests are testing. i think there was some effort by the testing framework student last year to work on this spaghetti of test cases.. I much prefer at the very least to give the test a meaningful name as Sebastian suggested with spbitfield01. We should consider refactoring and renaming all of the numerically-named tests.
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Joel Sherrill <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe a minor update to the Porting Guide to point out which tests go with > which parts of the porting process. > > Sebastian Huber <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 2013-08-05 15:21, Joel Sherrill wrote: >> At one point I had a set of porting tests which did not require an entire >> RTEMS build environment. Something like this was part of it. I also had some >> bit field tests and a few others. >> >> Should tests that exercise CPU specific code be in a single collection? > > I think that specific tests for all the low level CPU specific code would be a > great help for all porting RTEMS to a new architecture. Its so easy to get > the > bit field stuff wrong. I would use one test for a specific area, e.g. > spbitfield01. > > The sp37 seemed to be the right place for all the ISR related stuff. > > -- > Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH > > Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany > Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16 > Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09 > E-Mail : [email protected] > PGP : Public key available on request. > > Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG. > > _______________________________________________ > rtems-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel _______________________________________________ rtems-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
