On Mon, 2024-09-02 at 00:39 -0700, Hemraj, Deepthi via lists.openembedded.org wrote: > From: Deepthi Hemraj <[email protected]> > > [YOCTO #15338] > Enabled ptest integration in gcc-sanitizers.inc to facilitate the proper > testing and execution of address sanitizer (ASan) > > Defined the do_check task to execute ASan tests with proper environment setup > and updated do_install_ptest_base to copy ASan test executables to the ptest > directory. Included the run-ptest script to automate test execution. > > The run-ptest script iterates through executable files copied from the host, > runs each on the target, and logs the outcomes as either 'PASS' or 'XFAIL'. > XFAIL is because these tests are expected to fail on the host system as per > dejagnu as { dg-shouldfail "asan" } > > Signed-off-by: Deepthi Hemraj <[email protected]> > --- > .../distro/include/ptest-packagelists.inc | 1 + > meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-14.2.inc | 2 + > meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-sanitizers.inc | 43 ++++++++++++++++ > meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc/asan-exp.patch | 51 +++++++++++++++++++ > meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc/run-ptest | 28 ++++++++++ > 5 files changed, 125 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc/asan-exp.patch > create mode 100755 meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc/run-ptest
Would it make more sense to run this as part of the other gcc testsuites? It looks like there is a lot of duplication in these changes including a lot of ptest code. I'm also quite concerned at the buildpaths exceptions, build paths would be pointless in target packages so I'm not sure why those are present. Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#204063): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/204063 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/108223362/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
