Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> 于2020年1月9日周四 上午11:55写道：
>
> > Thanks, I think we can firstly get start in Linux and Windows. Then
> > consider how to setup Mac later, donate slave or other.
> > Two other question, nuttx uses some cross compile toolchains etc. In
> > addition, Cygwin or MinGW is in need once nuttx built under Windows
> slaves.
> > Should we ask for Apache Infra to help install in slave machines?
>
> MinGW is MSYS2, right? I use both Cygwin and MSYS2, they are a little
> different.
>
> You are right, just google MSYS2 is more flexible.Since I mainly built
under Ubuntu Linux, it may take more
effort to handle CI under Windows.
In configure.sh, there are four wenv options for windows as below:
-c selects the Windows host and Cygwin (c) environment.
-u selects the Windows host and Ubuntu under Windows 10 (u) environment.
-g selects the Windows host and MinGW/MSYS environment.
-n selects the Windows host and Windows native (n) environment.
Should we cover all of them in CI builds? I think we could cover all of
them
if the infra could provides all the four windows enviroment.
There is usually a small number of people using some form of BSD, NetBSD
> or FreeBSD. Most macOS build issues are due to the fact that macOS uses
> the BSD coreutils which are not 100% compatible with GNU coreutils. I
> suspect you could substitute FreeBSD for macOS and also catch most if
> not all macOS build issues.
>
> In the past, there have been users on Solaris and HP-UX, but I don't
> think we need to go there now.
>
> It would be better to substitute FreeBSD for macOS if MacOS not available
finally.
I'll raise an Infra jira later to see if FreeBSD available in Apache Infra.
Which targets do you plan to build? I routinely build all ARM targets
> (419 configurations and that omits several that are more difficult to
> automate), but we should also consider PIC32 and and Simulator. PIC32
> would require a MIPS toolchain. There are many other architectures but
> most do not warrant investing a lot of test effort. Renesas RX65N,
> RISC-V, ESP32, AVR might be feasible because they also use GCC
> toolchains and do get used. Some of the others do not use GCC or have
> much less use.
>
Our aim is to build as much as possible. As you point out, all ARM
targets, PIC32 and Simulator
could be covered at first stage. Renesas RX65N,
RISC-V, ESP32, AVR could also be covered. And we could figure out how long
the full build time.
According to the time, we could adjust build configs for PR check build if
necessary. Daily build should
cover all the target builds any way.
>
> There have been IAR tools used with ARM in the past. There have been
> requests for Mikroelektronika tool support in the past, but that was
> never implemented. SDCC and ZiLOG tools are used for some
> architectures. I think we can ignore all those for now.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
