* Wei Huang (w...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > On 01/04/2018 02:10 PM, Juan Quintela wrote: > > Wei Huang <w...@redhat.com> wrote: > > But once that everybody is looking, I would like to open a discussion > > about how to make more abstract this test, and not adding so many bits > > each time that we need to create a new machine. > > The test cases themselves are the most annoying ones. x86/aarch64 use > assembly (converted to binaries); but ppc uses scripts. How to find a > common solution to suite all arch's?
The asm/binaries is the main issue since reading/editing the binary is horrible. Power's forth is tiny and almost readable. If we want we could move it into a separate .c file somewhere just as a string but tat's a minor issue. Dave > > > > And once that we are here, I *think* that the ppc test is wrong, it is > > missing the -drive-file on destination, no? > > [cc'ing Laurent] > > > > > And once here, does -cpu host make sense only for arm, or should we do > > it for all archs? > > I think x86 and aarch64 are OK with it. But I am not sure about PPC. > > > > > Thanks, Juan. > > > -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
