-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
tests/*: memory blacklisting for new Docker image (edit cladmi: and current image) #9507
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
|
Hm, why do some msp430s break with bionic? Isn't it using the same (age-old) toolchain? |
|
According to packages.ubuntu.com it went from |
|
Could be fstack-protector and _FORTIFY_SOURCE related. Try building for one of the failing platforms with CFLAGS=-fno-stack-protector |
|
I added |
|
All of the applications that were failing before are now working according to @kaspar030 @gebart Do you think that simply blocking the tests is acceptable in this circumstance? It might be possible to get them working again, but I lack the experience with the toolchains to effectively debug it myself. If we want the July release to be tested with the new Docker image, it may be easiest to use this PR and open a bug report on the broken packages (to be solved at some point in the future). |
tests/libfixmath_unittests/Makefile
Outdated
| BOARD_BLACKLIST += chronos msb-430 msb-430h telosb wsn430-v1_3b wsn430-v1_4 z1 | ||
|
|
||
| BOARD_INSUFFICIENT_MEMORY := nucleo-f031k6 nucleo-f042k6 nucleo-l031k6 | ||
| BOARD_INSUFFICIENT_MEMORY := nucleo-f030r8 nucleo-f031k6 nucleo-f042k6 \ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this can help here: #9643
| endif | ||
|
|
||
| BOARD_INSUFFICIENT_MEMORY := nucleo-f031k6 | ||
| BOARD_INSUFFICIENT_MEMORY := msb-430 msb-430h nucleo-f031k6 telosb \ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I also have issue with my ubuntu stable for building these, I will try to find why.
|
I have the same issues with For Which is a big difference… it should be investigated why. I will try to find what I can. |
|
@gebart yes it is, in fact the relative path is not relative when building in docker #9645 (comment) |
|
Reverted |
|
I will re-run tests locally with |
cladmi
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Both tests work in docker for me. Please rebase and squash.
dbe529f to
25c7b3c
Compare
|
@miri64 I was waiting on Murdock as this is otherwise ready to merge. Please don't knock other peoples' PRs to the bottom of the queue unless it is really needed. |
|
@ZetaR60 It's because murdock is not scheduling builds properly. The only work-around we found yet, is re-triggering every waiting PRs. |
|
Oh, okay. |
|
Yeah sorry, @ZetaR60... I basically round-robin all the PRs in the queue right now, but I can give your PR precedence, if you like to. |
|
Backport provided in #9658 |
Just to understand: we just accept that a toolchain upgrade increases RAM usage so certain applications don't fit anymore? |
|
@kaspar030 You are generalizing and making it bigger than it is for this case. In practice it's many added reasons:
It does not mean it fits on your toolchain in general, it does not mean there will not be an issue with your toolchain if not in it.
It has been non compiling in our current Here my "needed" reason is, release tests fail because of it and in addition it is the only blocker for following ubuntu stable. Also, these are two external packages, for really specific features, So yes because of all this, I disable linking them in CI. |
Sorry, I didn't intend to offend.
This I don't understand. Why can Murdock link these just fine? This is not "increase of memory usage somewhere in RIOT", but caused by different toolchains, right? These things happen, but I think we need to get to the ground. |
Maybe related? #9398 (comment) |
|
@kaspar030 Yeah also tired morning mood on my side, so was a bit grumpy, sorry :) We have noticed difference of behavior between the docker image and We have warnings only visible in the container for both #9362, #9605 and #9398 in general. |
Contribution description
This adds boards to
BOARD_INSUFFICIENT_MEMORYfor tests that failed due to memory errors on the new Docker image.EDIT from cladmi: They also fail on the old docker image
Issues/PRs references
RIOT-OS/riotdocker#42
#9405