Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] gcc-sanitizers: Add ptest support for AddressSanitizer tests

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, 2024-09-02 at 00:39 -0700, Hemraj, Deepthi via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> From: Deepthi Hemraj <Deepthi.Hemraj@windriver.com>
> 
> [YOCTO #15338]
> Enabled ptest integration in gcc-sanitizers.inc to facilitate the proper testing and execution of address sanitizer (ASan)
> 
> Defined the do_check task to execute ASan tests with proper environment setup and updated do_install_ptest_base to copy ASan test executables to the ptest directory. Included the run-ptest script to automate test execution.
> 
> The run-ptest script iterates through executable files copied from the host, runs each on the target, and logs the outcomes as either 'PASS' or 'XFAIL'. XFAIL is because these tests are expected to fail on the host system as per dejagnu as { dg-shouldfail "asan" }
> 
> Signed-off-by: Deepthi Hemraj <Deepthi.Hemraj@windriver.com>
> ---
>  .../distro/include/ptest-packagelists.inc     |  1 +
>  meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-14.2.inc        |  2 +
>  meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-sanitizers.inc  | 43 ++++++++++++++++
>  meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc/asan-exp.patch  | 51 +++++++++++++++++++
>  meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc/run-ptest       | 28 ++++++++++
>  5 files changed, 125 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc/asan-exp.patch
>  create mode 100755 meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc/run-ptest

Would it make more sense to run this as part of the other gcc testsuites?

It looks like there is a lot of duplication in these changes including
a lot of ptest code.

I'm also quite concerned at the buildpaths exceptions, build paths
would be pointless in target packages so I'm not sure why those are
present.

Cheers,

Richard