Re: [Development] Any supported platforms not tested in CI?

2017-11-14 Thread Konstantin Tokarev 


14.11.2017, 11:28, "Tuukka Turunen" :
> For some platforms we test compilation only. Also some tests/combinations are 
> only run with full qt5.git integration.
>
> More information in wiki: https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_5.9_Tools_and_Versions

See also coin/platform_configs directory in qt5.git

>
> Yours,
>
> Tuukka
>
> On 14/11/2017, 10.17, "Development on behalf of Thiago Macieira" 
>  thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On quarta-feira, 11 de outubro de 2017 04:23:58 PST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Are there any supported platforms that we do not test in the CI? 
> Probably
> > INTEGRITY?
>
> By the way, the answer to this question was YES.
>
> Using  did work on all compilers, but a full out-of-cycle build of
> qt5.git turned up at least two compilers that weren't tested in the main 
> cycle
> and balked at an implementation detail.
>
> The fix has just gone in to QBasicMutex.
>
> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
>   Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
>
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

-- 
Regards,
Konstantin
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Any supported platforms not tested in CI?

2017-11-14 Thread Konstantin Tokarev 


14.11.2017, 11:28, "Tuukka Turunen" :
> For some platforms we test compilation only. Also some tests/combinations are 
> only run with full qt5.git integration.
>
> More information in wiki: https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_5.9_Tools_and_Versions

See also coin/platform_configs directory in qt5.git

>
> Yours,
>
> Tuukka
>
> On 14/11/2017, 10.17, "Development on behalf of Thiago Macieira" 
>  thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On quarta-feira, 11 de outubro de 2017 04:23:58 PST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Are there any supported platforms that we do not test in the CI? 
> Probably
> > INTEGRITY?
>
> By the way, the answer to this question was YES.
>
> Using  did work on all compilers, but a full out-of-cycle build of
> qt5.git turned up at least two compilers that weren't tested in the main 
> cycle
> and balked at an implementation detail.
>
> The fix has just gone in to QBasicMutex.
>
> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
>   Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
>
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

-- 
Regards,
Konstantin
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Any supported platforms not tested in CI?

2017-11-14 Thread Tuukka Turunen 
For some platforms we test compilation only. Also some tests/combinations are 
only run with full qt5.git integration. 

More information in wiki: https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_5.9_Tools_and_Versions

Yours,

Tuukka

On 14/11/2017, 10.17, "Development on behalf of Thiago Macieira" 
 wrote:

On quarta-feira, 11 de outubro de 2017 04:23:58 PST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Are there any supported platforms that we do not test in the CI? Probably
> INTEGRITY?

By the way, the answer to this question was YES.

Using  did work on all compilers, but a full out-of-cycle build of 
qt5.git turned up at least two compilers that weren't tested in the main 
cycle 
and balked at an implementation detail.

The fix has just gone in to QBasicMutex.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development


___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Any supported platforms not tested in CI?

2017-11-14 Thread Thiago Macieira 
On quarta-feira, 11 de outubro de 2017 04:23:58 PST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Are there any supported platforms that we do not test in the CI? Probably
> INTEGRITY?

By the way, the answer to this question was YES.

Using  did work on all compilers, but a full out-of-cycle build of 
qt5.git turned up at least two compilers that weren't tested in the main cycle 
and balked at an implementation detail.

The fix has just gone in to QBasicMutex.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Any supported platforms not tested in CI?

2017-10-24 Thread Allan Sandfeld Jensen 
On Montag, 23. Oktober 2017 23:48:07 CEST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Monday, 23 October 2017 14:13:02 PDT Jake Petroules wrote:
> > I believe we use qemu for the CI machines anyways, so we could probably
> > emulate a ppc or mips CPU running Debian quite easily.
> 
> Given the choice, I'd say MIPS is more interesting. It's still a valid
> embedded target platform (my router is MIPS).
> 
> Note also we're running qemu-user for the ARM builds, which has shown issues
> when emulating certain system calls. We're not running qemu-system.

I found the easiest big-endian target to test for is powerpc, because Debian 
has it that configuration where MIPS is more commonly mipsel.

'Allan
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Any supported platforms not tested in CI?

2017-10-23 Thread Thiago Macieira 
On Monday, 23 October 2017 14:13:02 PDT Jake Petroules wrote:
> I believe we use qemu for the CI machines anyways, so we could probably
> emulate a ppc or mips CPU running Debian quite easily.
 
Given the choice, I'd say MIPS is more interesting. It's still a valid 
embedded target platform (my router is MIPS).

Note also we're running qemu-user for the ARM builds, which has shown issues 
when emulating certain system calls. We're not running qemu-system.
-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Any supported platforms not tested in CI?

2017-10-23 Thread Jake Petroules 
I believe we use qemu for the CI machines anyways, so we could probably emulate 
a ppc or mips CPU running Debian quite easily.

> On Oct 23, 2017, at 1:59 PM, Dmitry Shachnev  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 08:14:12AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> For every architecture where the processor can run in either endianness, the
>> system chooses one and sticks to it, so all software is specifically compiled
>> for that choice. It's also encoded in the Qt sysinfo name:
>> 
>> $ $QTLIBDIR/libQt5Core.t.so | head -1
>> This is the QtCore library version Qt 5.10.0 (x86_64-little_endian-lp64 
>> shared
>> (dynamic) debug build; by GCC 7.2.1 20171005 [gcc-7-branch revision 253439])
>> 
>> See
>> https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch02s01.html.en
>>  armel   - l for little endian
>>  mipsel  - l for little endian
>>  mips64el- l for little endian
>>  ppc64el - l for little endian
>> 
>> I'd recommend trying the mips build, though it doesn't have the "e" which I
>> believe stands for either "embedded" or "EABI" (where the E stands for
>> "embedded").
> 
> No, in Debian architecture names “el” means little endian.
> 
> If you can consider running native big endian hardware for CI, then Debian’s
> mips architecture would work, but other good choices are s390x and ppc64.
> 
> See https://wiki.debian.org/ArchitectureSpecificsMemo#Summary for the full
> list of Debian architectures with their endianness.
> 
> --
> Dmitry Shachnev
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

-- 
Jake Petroules - jake.petrou...@qt.io
The Qt Company - Silicon Valley
Qbs build tool evangelist - qbs.io

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Any supported platforms not tested in CI?

2017-10-23 Thread Dmitry Shachnev 
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 08:14:12AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> For every architecture where the processor can run in either endianness, the
> system chooses one and sticks to it, so all software is specifically compiled
> for that choice. It's also encoded in the Qt sysinfo name:
>
> $ $QTLIBDIR/libQt5Core.t.so | head -1
> This is the QtCore library version Qt 5.10.0 (x86_64-little_endian-lp64 shared
> (dynamic) debug build; by GCC 7.2.1 20171005 [gcc-7-branch revision 253439])
>
> See
> https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch02s01.html.en
>   armel   - l for little endian
>   mipsel  - l for little endian
>   mips64el- l for little endian
>   ppc64el - l for little endian
>
> I'd recommend trying the mips build, though it doesn't have the "e" which I
> believe stands for either "embedded" or "EABI" (where the E stands for
> "embedded").

No, in Debian architecture names “el” means little endian.

If you can consider running native big endian hardware for CI, then Debian’s
mips architecture would work, but other good choices are s390x and ppc64.

See https://wiki.debian.org/ArchitectureSpecificsMemo#Summary for the full
list of Debian architectures with their endianness.

--
Dmitry Shachnev


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Any supported platforms not tested in CI?

2017-10-20 Thread Konstantin Tokarev 


20.10.2017, 18:14, "Thiago Macieira" :
> On Friday, 20 October 2017 07:09:26 PDT Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>>  I've found this on Intel side:
>>
>>  https://software.intel.com/en-us/node/628867
>>
>>  I hope Thiago can tell us more about this option.
>>
>>  I know PathScale had bi-endian compiler in the past, but I don't know if
>>  it's possible to obtain it now.
>
> That's a compiler to run on bi-endian systems, which I don't think anyone ever
> does. I've never seen this tool, I don't know if we could get access to it,
> and in any case I recommend against trying to do that.

Oh, then I just confused it with similarly named tool from PathScale
which was building code for running on little-endian machine but using 
big-endian
memory layout (by inserting byte swapping code where needed)

>
> For every architecture where the processor can run in either endianness, the
> system chooses one and sticks to it, so all software is specifically compiled
> for that choice. It's also encoded in the Qt sysinfo name:
>
> $ $QTLIBDIR/libQt5Core.t.so | head -1
> This is the QtCore library version Qt 5.10.0 (x86_64-little_endian-lp64 shared
> (dynamic) debug build; by GCC 7.2.1 20171005 [gcc-7-branch revision 253439])
>
> See
> https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch02s01.html.en
> armel - l for little endian
> mipsel - l for little endian
> mips64el - l for little endian
> ppc64el - l for little endian
>
> I'd recommend trying the mips build, though it doesn't have the "e" which I
> believe stands for either "embedded" or "EABI" (where the E stands for
> "embedded"). Yocto also defaults to big endian:
>
> $ file -L /opt/poky/2.3/sysroots/mips32r2-poky-linux/lib/libc.so.6
> /opt/poky/2.3/sysroots/mips32r2-poky-linux/lib/libc.so.6: ELF 32-bit MSB
> shared object, MIPS, MIPS32 rel2 version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked,
> interpreter /lib/ld.so.1, for GNU/Linux 3.2.0, stripped
>
> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
>   Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
>
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

-- 
Regards,
Konstantin
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Any supported platforms not tested in CI?

2017-10-20 Thread Thiago Macieira 
On Friday, 20 October 2017 07:09:26 PDT Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> I've found this on Intel side:
> 
> https://software.intel.com/en-us/node/628867
> 
> I hope Thiago can tell us more about this option.
> 
> I know PathScale had bi-endian compiler in the past, but I don't know if
> it's possible to obtain it now.

That's a compiler to run on bi-endian systems, which I don't think anyone ever 
does. I've never seen this tool, I don't know if we could get access to it, 
and in any case I recommend against trying to do that.

For every architecture where the processor can run in either endianness, the 
system chooses one and sticks to it, so all software is specifically compiled 
for that choice. It's also encoded in the Qt sysinfo name:

$ $QTLIBDIR/libQt5Core.t.so | head -1
This is the QtCore library version Qt 5.10.0 (x86_64-little_endian-lp64 shared 
(dynamic) debug build; by GCC 7.2.1 20171005 [gcc-7-branch revision 253439])

See
https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch02s01.html.en
armel   - l for little endian
mipsel  - l for little endian
mips64el- l for little endian
ppc64el - l for little endian

I'd recommend trying the mips build, though it doesn't have the "e" which I 
believe stands for either "embedded" or "EABI" (where the E stands for 
"embedded"). Yocto also defaults to big endian:

$ file -L /opt/poky/2.3/sysroots/mips32r2-poky-linux/lib/libc.so.6
/opt/poky/2.3/sysroots/mips32r2-poky-linux/lib/libc.so.6: ELF 32-bit MSB 
shared object, MIPS, MIPS32 rel2 version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, 
interpreter /lib/ld.so.1, for GNU/Linux 3.2.0, stripped

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Any supported platforms not tested in CI?

2017-10-20 Thread Konstantin Tokarev 


20.10.2017, 17:03, "Ville Voutilainen" :
> On 20 October 2017 at 16:59, Konstantin Tokarev  wrote:
>>  20.10.2017, 16:55, "Dmitry Shachnev" :
>>>  On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 01:23:58PM +0200, Thiago Macieira wrote:
   Are there any supported platforms that we do not test in the CI? Probably
   INTEGRITY?

   [...]

   So the question is: are there any platforms that could break even after
   passing the CI check?
>>>
>>>  It would help us (Debian) a lot if Qt had something big endian on the CI.
>>>
>>>  Currently big endian support breaks with almost every major Qt release.
>>
>>  Or at least use some kind of bi-endian compiler on little-endian host, with
>>  running unit tests
>
> Any suggestions for what that something would be?

I've found this on Intel side:

https://software.intel.com/en-us/node/628867

I hope Thiago can tell us more about this option.

I know PathScale had bi-endian compiler in the past, but I don't know if it's 
possible
to obtain it now.


-- 
Regards,
Konstantin
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Any supported platforms not tested in CI?

2017-10-20 Thread Ville Voutilainen 
On 20 October 2017 at 16:59, Konstantin Tokarev  wrote:
>
>
> 20.10.2017, 16:55, "Dmitry Shachnev" :
>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 01:23:58PM +0200, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>>>  Are there any supported platforms that we do not test in the CI? Probably
>>>  INTEGRITY?
>>>
>>>  [...]
>>>
>>>  So the question is: are there any platforms that could break even after
>>>  passing the CI check?
>>
>> It would help us (Debian) a lot if Qt had something big endian on the CI.
>>
>> Currently big endian support breaks with almost every major Qt release.
>
> Or at least use some kind of bi-endian compiler on little-endian host, with
> running unit tests


Any suggestions for what that something would be?
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Any supported platforms not tested in CI?

2017-10-20 Thread Konstantin Tokarev 


20.10.2017, 16:55, "Dmitry Shachnev" :
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 01:23:58PM +0200, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>>  Are there any supported platforms that we do not test in the CI? Probably
>>  INTEGRITY?
>>
>>  [...]
>>
>>  So the question is: are there any platforms that could break even after
>>  passing the CI check?
>
> It would help us (Debian) a lot if Qt had something big endian on the CI.
>
> Currently big endian support breaks with almost every major Qt release.

Or at least use some kind of bi-endian compiler on little-endian host, with
running unit tests

>
> --
> Dmitry Shachnev
> ,
>
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

-- 
Regards,
Konstantin
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Any supported platforms not tested in CI?

2017-10-20 Thread Dmitry Shachnev 
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 01:23:58PM +0200, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Are there any supported platforms that we do not test in the CI? Probably
> INTEGRITY?
>
> [...]
>
> So the question is: are there any platforms that could break even after 
> passing the CI check?

It would help us (Debian) a lot if Qt had something big endian on the CI.

Currently big endian support breaks with almost every major Qt release.

--
Dmitry Shachnev


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Any supported platforms not tested in CI?

2017-10-12 Thread Thiago Macieira 
On quarta-feira, 11 de outubro de 2017 04:23:58 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Right now, Qt 5.10 has a configure-time warning if we don't find C++11
> . I'd like to make that an error and for that I've just pushed a
> change that makes it so.

https://codereview.qt-project.org/208212
-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Any supported platforms not tested in CI?

2017-10-11 Thread Thiago Macieira 
On quarta-feira, 11 de outubro de 2017 12:14:17 PDT Jake Petroules wrote:
> VxWorks 7 = gcc 4.8.1

 has been in GCC for 10 years, so we should be ok.

Can someone check INTEGRITY? Just:

#include 
int main()
{
std::mt19937 mt;
}

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Any supported platforms not tested in CI?

2017-10-11 Thread Jake Petroules 
VxWorks 7 = gcc 4.8.1

--
Jake Petroules - jake.petrou...@qt.io
The Qt Company - Silicon Valley
Qbs build tool evangelist - qbs.io

From: Development <development-bounces+jake.petroules=qt...@qt-project.org> on 
behalf of Simon Hausmann <simon.hausm...@qt.io>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 8:52:57 PM
To: Thiago Macieira
Cc: Development
Subject: Re: [Development] Any supported platforms not tested in CI?

Hi,

Integrity (ghs) is checked during the qt5 build.

Vxworks is the only target I can think of that is not CI tested. But iirc 
that’s a gcc flavor.

Simon

On 11. Oct 2017, at 20:49, Thiago Macieira 
<thiago.macie...@intel.com<mailto:thiago.macie...@intel.com>> wrote:

Are there any supported platforms that we do not test in the CI? Probably
INTEGRITY?

I'm asking based on this outcome from QtCS:

We will not add compilers that are worse than what we have today.

Right now, Qt 5.10 has a configure-time warning if we don't find C++11 .
I'd like to make that an error and for that I've just pushed a change that
makes it so.

So the question is: are there any platforms that could break even after
passing the CI check?
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com<http://intel.com>
 Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org<mailto:Development@qt-project.org>
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Any supported platforms not tested in CI?

2017-10-11 Thread Simon Hausmann 
Hi,

Integrity (ghs) is checked during the qt5 build.

Vxworks is the only target I can think of that is not CI tested. But iirc 
that’s a gcc flavor.

Simon

On 11. Oct 2017, at 20:49, Thiago Macieira 
> wrote:

Are there any supported platforms that we do not test in the CI? Probably
INTEGRITY?

I'm asking based on this outcome from QtCS:

We will not add compilers that are worse than what we have today.

Right now, Qt 5.10 has a configure-time warning if we don't find C++11 .
I'd like to make that an error and for that I've just pushed a change that
makes it so.

So the question is: are there any platforms that could break even after
passing the CI check?
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
 Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development