On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 15:57, abebeos <lazaridis.com+abeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Στις Πέμ, 10 Δεκ 2020 στις 7:42 π.μ., ο/η Dimitar Dimitrov < > dimi...@dinux.eu> έγραψε: > >> On сряда, 9 декември 2020 г. 15:12:49 EET abebeos via Gcc-patches wrote: >> > Essence: >> > >> > I need a confirmation that the testsuite setup as presented in: >> > >> > https://github.com/abebeos/avr-gnu >> > >> > works fine. >> > >> > The problem with the avr target is that the testsuite cannot be run >> easily, >> > mainly because of the need for a special simulated-target setup, which >> does >> > not work for avr as documented. This led developers to a dead-end with >> > their non-cc0-avr-backends (the non-cc0 backend is needed thus avr is >> not >> > dropped from gcc11). >> > >> > I integrated a toolchain/testsetup to be able to run the gcc testsuite >> > against a simulated avr target. >> > >> > I then used this toolchain to test 2 different existent >> > non-cc0-avr-backends (from pipcet and saaadhu, both github). >> > >> > The result is that saaadhu's backend seems to be working 100%. It has >> > identical testsuite results with the existing (but deprecated) >> cc0-backend, >> > which means that it can be used "as-is" for inclusion in gcc11. >> > >> > Please note that I did this work in context of a bounty @ bountysouce, >> more >> > information within the issue: >> > >> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729#c35 >> Hi, >> >> I tested the trees you have given with my own AVR test setup [1]. I >> confirm >> your results: >> - saaadhu's tree does not introduce any regressions. >> > > ok > > - pipcet's tree has 142 gcc and 299 g++ regressions (although many of >> them >> are duplicates, e.g. same test case with different optimization >> levels). >> >> It's a bit awkward to copy gcc/config/avr into a mainline tree > > > Possibly a matter of preference, but when I'm insecure, I prefer low-level > ops (e.g. filesystem). > > >> Looking at their github history, both authors made some small changes in >> other areas. > > > saaadhu has one change, already in upstream: > https://github.com/saaadhu/gcc-avr-cc0/issues/1 > > I don't remember why choose to ignored the 2 changes (outside > gcc/config/avr) of pipcet's. > > I'll repeat the test-run later with the two files recreated. > 3 files are changed outside config/avr. testresults are the same on my side (applying / not applying the 3 additional patches). > > I would have prefered to cherry-pick or apply patches. >> > [...] > I added the patches: https://github.com/abebeos/avr-gnu/tree/master/patches (see comment in cp-avr-* : "#TD: nonsense script, use a direct git > checkout") > > https://github.com/dinuxbg/gnupru/blob/master/testing/buildbot-avr.sh >> > > Nice one, this is kind of what I was asking for within > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729#c11 > > before going on to integrate an own one. > > But the main thing is anyways: > > " - saaadhu's tree does not introduce any regressions" > > > > >
