From: Philipp K. K. <pk...@sp...> - 2011-01-18 18:02:39
|
With the new register allocator regression test failures are down to 5 for the gbz80 port. IMO we should consider treating gbz80 as a "full" port again once the new register allocator has been merged and those 5 failures have been fixed (or just disabled for gbz80), even if there is no maintainer. We'd include it in the daily regression tests and try not to break anything that works on gbz80. Philipp |
From: Borut R. <bor...@si...> - 2011-01-18 21:26:31
|
On 01/18/2011 07:03 PM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: > With the new register allocator regression test failures are down to 5 > for the gbz80 port. IMO we should consider treating gbz80 as a "full" > port again once the new register allocator has been merged and those 5 > failures have been fixed (or just disabled for gbz80), even if there is > no maintainer. This is good news. It seems that we have the gbz80 maintainer, after all ;-) > We'd include it in the daily regression tests and try not to break > anything that works on gbz80. Do you mean to include it before fixing 5 bugs? This would mean they should be disabled and there is a risk that they will be forgotten. OTOH nobody knows when 5 bugs will be fixed, so there is probability that gbz80 regtests won't be included for a long time... P.S.: Few days ago when I was fixing the ucz80 bug I realized that implementing gbz80 simulator in ucsim shouldn't be a big problem. But I don't know if there is any interest for it from users, so I'm not sure if it is worth to spend the time on it... Borut |
From: Philipp K. K. <pk...@sp...> - 2011-01-18 22:29:54
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am 18.01.2011 22:26, schrieb Borut Razem: > On 01/18/2011 07:03 PM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: >> With the new register allocator regression test failures are down to 5 >> for the gbz80 port. IMO we should consider treating gbz80 as a "full" >> port again once the new register allocator has been merged and those 5 >> failures have been fixed (or just disabled for gbz80), even if there is >> no maintainer. > > This is good news. It seems that we have the gbz80 maintainer, after all > ;-) > >> We'd include it in the daily regression tests and try not to break >> anything that works on gbz80. > > Do you mean to include it before fixing 5 bugs? Yes. > This would mean they > should be disabled and there is a risk that they will be forgotten. I'd open a bug report for them. > OTOH > nobody knows when 5 bugs will be fixed, so there is probability that > gbz80 regtests won't be included for a long time... Which would result in new bugs being introduced into the gbz80 port without being noticed. > > P.S.: Few days ago when I was fixing the ucz80 bug I realized that > implementing gbz80 simulator in ucsim shouldn't be a big problem. But I > don't know if there is any interest for it from users, so I'm not sure > if it is worth to spend the time on it... AFAIK the users of the gbz80 port are few. IMO they are likely to be using other emulators for their work. Philipp -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk02FFsACgkQbtUV+xsoLpoGogCg9H80bCgQs6gmvbYkjX2eUWGU XV0AoNTtZlXMPfSjXb4NEarBfPI6/q2A =5wXD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |