From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46529) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bn6sW-0005vC-Qh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 12:29:41 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bn6sU-00051w-WC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 12:29:39 -0400 Received: from mail-ua0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400c:c08::235]:35077) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bn6sU-00051i-QV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 12:29:38 -0400 Received: by mail-ua0-x235.google.com with SMTP id 107so4104773uah.2 for ; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:29:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0539b637-5e24-279a-6c9b-eb151ce32140@twiddle.net> References: <1474401271-3104-1-git-send-email-rth@twiddle.net> <0539b637-5e24-279a-6c9b-eb151ce32140@twiddle.net> From: Peter Maydell Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 17:29:17 +0100 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 00/13] AVR target List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Richard Henderson Cc: QEMU Developers On 22 September 2016 at 17:07, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 09/22/2016 07:39 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> >> Fails 'make check' on all platforms: >> >> TEST: tests/qom-test... (pid=7359) >> /avr/qom/none: OK >> /avr/qom/sample: >> qemu-system-avr: Could not find flash image file '(null)' >> Broken pipe >> FAIL > > > Ho hum. I never considered that not touching tests/ would create new tests. > > For the record, how does arm handle the case of no -bios given? Just > blindly execute 0's without a warning? Would it be better to allow > execution of 0's or blacklist? The usual approach to this is that you add "&& !qtest_enabled()" to the check for "should we bomb out?". (see for instance mips_malta.c). The qtest framework isn't ever going to try to execute anything, it just creates the system and sets itself up so test cases can prod it, and so there's no need for there to be executable code present. (The purpose of the qom-test test is "check that the board will at least instantiate itself without falling over"; you can also write tests to do more interesting things.) For actual-running of boards, ARM boards mostly will happily let you run a pile of zeroes. Some other boards will complain if you didn't provide a kernel or a bios image. PS: probably better to avoid printf("...%s...", NULL) too. thanks -- PMM