On 29 November 2013 07:16, Alex Peshkoff <peshk...@mail.ru> wrote: > On 11/28/13 22:52, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: >> On 28 November 2013 18:26, Leyne, Sean <s...@broadviewsoftware.com> wrote: >>> Dmitrijs, >>> >>>> I've enabled ARM64 build of firebird2.5 in ubuntu. >>>> I don't have access to arm64 machines and hence i have no idea if it >>>> actually >>>> runs =) it does compile though. >>> While it is good that you worked on the port. >>> >>> If you don't have an platform to test, why would you bother with the effort? >>> >> The reason it's not tested, it's because I've never used firebird =) >> >> Hence the instructions on how to use chroot with qemu-static based >> emulation to test firebird on, if one wishes to try out ARM64. >> Furthermore since binaries are compiled, one can boot into foundation >> model (free of charge to download) and test it there as well. >> >> Are there any sort of testsuites for firebird that I can execute? It >> doesn't look like any are compiled or run at Debian/Ubuntu package >> build time. > > We have 2 testsuites - official: > http://sourceforge.net/p/firebird/code/HEAD/tree/qa/, svn checkout > svn://svn.code.sf.net/p/firebird/code/qa/ > and historical: > http://firebird.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/firebird/fbtcs/?pathrev=B2_5_Release > (be aware 8 tests in the end fail) > > I've used to work with both of them on Ubuntu 12.04. QA requires python > and kinterbasdb installed, fbtcs requires nothing in addition to tools > one is using to build firebird. > >> >> E.g. postgresql package executes hundreds of test cases at build-time, >> to verify that what has been compiled actually works. > > Not sure how are ubuntu packages are built, but suppose it's possible to > run QA after the build. There are also >900 tests. >
Are those test cases shipped part of the tarball? >>> Further, if you can't test, wouldn't it be ill-advised/dangerous to take >>> the patch (which usually implies/requires that the change has been tested)? >>> >> Please look at my patch. It doesn't actually add or modify any code. >> All it does is add boiler plate defines. It is equivalent of >> "autoreconf -f -i", which all what's needed for majority of portable >> software packages out there. Why is autoconf not used? (one doesn't >> need to use automake, one can use autoconf stand-alone to do >> target/feature discover - e.g. endianess, required libraries to link, >> etc) >> >> >> Are you saying Firebird is currently broken on all little-endian linux >> targets? > > As far as I know it's OK. But there are may be issues on specific > platform. For example to build for Android (on ARM) we had to turn off > optimization - or even client hangs/segfaults very soon. > Well Android/Arm means bionic libc, which only has partial implementation of many calls (stubs that do nothing). >> Not sure how can it be dangerous, the patch doesn't modify anything on >> any other target / architecture. And since Firebird doesn't exist on >> ARM64 yet, it can't possibly regress =) > > If build completes that's already a kind of minimum test cause newly > built embedded engine is used during the build. Therefore I think we can Sounds good. > accept the patch provided it's done not for 2.5 only but also for trunk. > Does it not apply? Regards, Dmitrijs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349351&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
