Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] .travis.yml: drop 32 bit systems from MAIN_SOFTMMU_TARGETS

2019-11-13 Thread Alex Bennée


Aleksandar Markovic  writes:

>> From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 
>> > -- 
>> > MAIN_SOFTMMU_TARGETS="aarch64-softmmu,arm-softmmu,i386-softmmu,mips-softmmu,mips64-softmmu,ppc64-softmmu,riscv64-softmmu,s390x-softmmu,x86_64-softmmu"
>> > +- 
>> > MAIN_SOFTMMU_TARGETS="aarch64-softmmu,mips64-softmmu,ppc64-softmmu,riscv64-softmmu,s390x-softmmu,x86_64-softmmu"
>>
>> Aleksandar, since you mostly test 32-bit MIPS, are you OK we keep
>> mips-softmmu and drop mips64-softmmu here? Another job (acceptance-test)
>> builds the mips64el-softmmu.
>
> Philippe, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Yes, 32-bit mips
> targets are important to us, but, what can we do, time constraints are
> time constraints, so I agree with Alex change, please go ahead, Alex.
> We can test 32-bit mips targets via other acceptance tests (those that
> can run longer, so-called "slow" group), and perhaps we can extend
> them to test more 32-bit mips systems.

To be clear both gcc and clang have rules that test:

- CONFIG="--disable-user --target-list-exclude=${MAIN_SOFTMMU_TARGETS}"

So the main targets which are reducing their coverage are:

- CONFIG="--enable-debug --target-list=${MAIN_SOFTMMU_TARGETS}"

- CONFIG="--enable-modules --target-list=${MAIN_SOFTMMU_TARGETS}"

- CONFIG="--target-list=${MAIN_SOFTMMU_TARGETS} "
- CACHE_NAME="${TRAVIS_BRANCH}-linux-clang-sanitize"
  compiler: clang
  before_script:
- ./configure ${CONFIG} --extra-cflags="-fsanitize=undefined -Werror" 
|| { cat config.log && exit 1; }

- CONFIG="--enable-gprof --enable-gcov --disable-pie 
--target-list=${MAIN_SOFTMMU_TARGETS}"

and the MacOSX 9.4 build:
# MacOSX builds
- env:
- CONFIG="--target-list=${MAIN_SOFTMMU_TARGETS}"
  os: osx
  osx_image: xcode9.4
  compiler: clang

The Xcode 10.3 build is already a reduced list:
- 
CONFIG="--target-list=i386-softmmu,ppc-softmmu,ppc64-softmmu,m68k-softmmu,x86_64-softmmu"


>
> Thanks to everybody,
> Aleksandar


--
Alex Bennée



Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] .travis.yml: drop 32 bit systems from MAIN_SOFTMMU_TARGETS

2019-11-13 Thread Philippe Mathieu-Daudé

On 11/13/19 6:38 PM, Aleksandar Markovic wrote:

From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 

-- 
MAIN_SOFTMMU_TARGETS="aarch64-softmmu,arm-softmmu,i386-softmmu,mips-softmmu,mips64-softmmu,ppc64-softmmu,riscv64-softmmu,s390x-softmmu,x86_64-softmmu"
+- 
MAIN_SOFTMMU_TARGETS="aarch64-softmmu,mips64-softmmu,ppc64-softmmu,riscv64-softmmu,s390x-softmmu,x86_64-softmmu"


Aleksandar, since you mostly test 32-bit MIPS, are you OK we keep
mips-softmmu and drop mips64-softmmu here? Another job (acceptance-test)
builds the mips64el-softmmu.


Philippe, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Yes, 32-bit mips targets are 
important to us, but, what can we do, time constraints are time constraints, so I agree 
with Alex change, please go ahead, Alex. We can test 32-bit mips targets via other 
acceptance tests (those that can run longer, so-called "slow" group), and 
perhaps we can extend them to test more 32-bit mips systems.


OK, let's keep mips64 as suggested Alex then.

Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 




Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: [PATCH v1 5/5] .travis.yml: drop 32 bit systems from MAIN_SOFTMMU_TARGETS

2019-11-13 Thread Aleksandar Markovic
> From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 
> > -- 
> > MAIN_SOFTMMU_TARGETS="aarch64-softmmu,arm-softmmu,i386-softmmu,mips-softmmu,mips64-softmmu,ppc64-softmmu,riscv64-softmmu,s390x-softmmu,x86_64-softmmu"
> > +- 
> > MAIN_SOFTMMU_TARGETS="aarch64-softmmu,mips64-softmmu,ppc64-softmmu,riscv64-softmmu,s390x-softmmu,x86_64-softmmu"
> 
> Aleksandar, since you mostly test 32-bit MIPS, are you OK we keep
> mips-softmmu and drop mips64-softmmu here? Another job (acceptance-test)
> builds the mips64el-softmmu.

Philippe, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Yes, 32-bit mips targets 
are important to us, but, what can we do, time constraints are time 
constraints, so I agree with Alex change, please go ahead, Alex. We can test 
32-bit mips targets via other acceptance tests (those that can run longer, 
so-called "slow" group), and perhaps we can extend them to test more 32-bit 
mips systems.

Thanks to everybody,
Aleksandar