On 20.05.2025 23:02, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 16/05/2024 12:07 pm, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >> Bring test_x86_emulator in line with other tests by adding >> install/uninstall rules. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vall...@cloud.com> >> --- >> tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile | 11 +++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile >> b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile >> index 834b2112e7fe..30edf7e0185d 100644 >> --- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile >> +++ b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile >> @@ -269,8 +269,15 @@ clean: >> .PHONY: distclean >> distclean: clean >> >> -.PHONY: install uninstall >> -install uninstall: >> +.PHONY: install >> +install: all >> + $(INSTALL_DIR) $(DESTDIR)$(LIBEXEC_BIN) >> + $(if $(TARGET-y),$(INSTALL_PROG) $(TARGET-y) $(DESTDIR)$(LIBEXEC_BIN)) >> + >> +.PHONY: uninstall >> +uninstall: >> + $(RM) -- $(addprefix $(DESTDIR)$(LIBEXEC_BIN)/,$(TARGET-y)) >> + >> >> .PHONY: run32 clean32 >> ifeq ($(XEN_COMPILE_ARCH),x86_64) > > [starting a clean thread] > > x86_emulator is not special enough to behave differently to the rest of > tools/. > > Theoretical concerns over cross compiling test_x86_emulator for non-x86 > can be fixed by whomever first wants to do this. > > The very real problem is that this doesn't run in x86 CI, because and > only because it doesn't have an install target.
Well, I won't insist on any of the adjustments to be made that previously were discussed, yet I wonder: Elsewhere you complain (at times loudly) about (building up) technical debt. Further, without the compiler overridden to be the absolutely newest one available, coverage of such testing would be limited (especially if some of my work there would finally, in part after years, be unblocked). Yes, that's better than nothing, but still ... Jan
