Re: [Simulavr-devel] avrtest and simulavr vs simulavrxx

[Joel Sherrill]

Weddington, Eric wrote:
>  
>
>   
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: 
> > address@hidden 
> > [mailto:address@hidden
> > u.org] On Behalf Of Joel Sherrill
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 3:42 PM
> > To: address@hidden
> > Subject: [Simulavr-devel] avrtest and simulavr vs simulavrxx
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to make sure simulavrxx has all
> > the capabilities avrtest and simulavr have.
> >
> > I am more familiar with avrtest and think
> > these are the current deficiencies:
> >
> > + no maximum run limit
> > + no magic "exit" port
> > + no magic "abort" port
> >
> > Are there other issues?  I have almost finished
> > addressing those.
> >     
>
> I think that the magic test to see if everything is covered under avrtest, is 
> to run the GCC Regression Test for the AVR and there are no differences between 
> avrtest and simulavrxx.
>   
That makes sense.  Once my "magic port" and time limit
changes are committed we will need to create another
dejagnu/boards file.  I assume you can run avr-elf gcc tests
easily.

I noticed avrtest only supports two avr device names avr51
and avr6.  I assume these are the cores/multilib names.
How do these map into the simulavrxx devices?

AT90S4433
AT90S8515
ATMEGA128

Do we want "synthethic" CPU models for testing which comprise
the right core and the phony avrtest magic ports?

> Eric
>   


--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
address@hidden        On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
  Support Available             (256) 722-9985