On Fri, 08/25 10:10, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 25 August 2017 at 06:49, Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 25.08.2017 00:16, Cleber Rosa wrote: > >> > >> On 08/24/2017 05:50 PM, Programmingkid wrote: > >>> > >>> Thank you for the patches. I will test them. I was wondering what is the > >>> point to having both 'make check' and 'make test'. It looks like everyone > >>> is using 'make check'. Maybe we are better off removing the 'make test' > >>> target. > >>> > >> > >> I think the removing the `make test` target is a good thing, if its > >> tests are either absorbed by an existing `make check*` one. Now that > >> depends on what people think the tcg tests (and others) deserve... TLC? > >> Total annihilation? > > > > Since we do not have very good test coverage for TCG yet, I'd like to > > see this rather fixed than removed! Could you please CC: me on future > > versions of your patch series (I missed v1)? > > The problem is that we don't have a good framework for building > guest binaries to run under TCG. We should sort out one of those > so that it's easy for a new test to say "this is the .c file, > build it with an ARM gcc [eg using our docker stuff], then > run it with this QEMU command". When we have that it should > be straightforward to convert the 'make test' tests to use > that, and they can be run under 'make check'.
This seems straigtforward to do with docker. Could you elaborate a concrete example of one of the "this is the .c file, ..." test so I can try translate it to a Makefile rule using our docker images? fam
