[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] tools: Add install/uninstall targets to tests/x86_emulator


  • To: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vallejo@xxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 08:13:40 +0200
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Anthony PERARD <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 21 May 2024 06:13:54 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 16.05.2024 16:46, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 16/05/2024 13:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 16.05.2024 14:29, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>> On 16/05/2024 12:35, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 12:07:10PM +0100, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>>>> Bring test_x86_emulator in line with other tests by adding
>>>>> install/uninstall rules.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vallejo@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile | 11 +++++++++--
>>>>>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile 
>>>>> b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile
>>>>> index 834b2112e7fe..30edf7e0185d 100644
>>>>> --- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile
>>>>> +++ b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile
>>>>> @@ -269,8 +269,15 @@ clean:
>>>>>  .PHONY: distclean
>>>>>  distclean: clean
>>>>>  
>>>>> -.PHONY: install uninstall
>>>>> -install uninstall:
>>>>> +.PHONY: install
>>>>> +install: all
>>>>> + $(INSTALL_DIR) $(DESTDIR)$(LIBEXEC_BIN)
>>>>> + $(if $(TARGET-y),$(INSTALL_PROG) $(TARGET-y) $(DESTDIR)$(LIBEXEC_BIN))
>>>>> +
>>>>> +.PHONY: uninstall
>>>>> +uninstall:
>>>>> + $(RM) -- $(addprefix $(DESTDIR)$(LIBEXEC_BIN)/,$(TARGET-y))
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, should you check that HOSTCC == CC before installing?  Otherwise
>>>> I'm unsure of the result in cross-compiled builds, as the x86_emulator
>>>> is built with HOSTCC, not CC.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Roger.
>>>
>>> Right...
>>>
>>> More generally, should we do s/CC/HOSTCC/ on all compiler checks? I see
>>> no particular reason to do them on $(CC) rather than the actual compiler
>>> used during build.
>>
>> No. There really is a mix here, intentionally. Anything built through 
>> testcase.mk
>> is using CC, and hence respective checking needs to use CC, too. That said, I
>> don't think the split is done quite correctly just yet, which may raise the
>> question of whether having the split is actually worth it.
> 
> I'm a bit puzzled by this. Why do we compile pieces of the test binary
> with different toolchains?
> 
> At a glance it seems inconsequential in the native case and
> fully broken on the cross-compiled case (which I guess is what Roger was
> hinting at and I failed to notice).
> 
> Why the distinction? What am I missing?

It's convoluted and not fully consistent, yes. Consider for a moment that the
emulator truly was what its name says, i.e. not merely re-playing insns. In
such a case it could be run on non-x86, while still emulating x86 code. Thus
code being emulated and code doing the emulation would necessarily need to be
built with different compilers.

It being (in most cases) merely replaying, the boundary has been fuzzy for a
very long time: While for most parts it's clear what group they fall into,
test_x86_emulator.c itself is (has become? even 3.2.3 already has at least
one instance) a hybrid. Yet in principle this file should also be buildable
with the (x86 or non-x86) host compiler.

Jan



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.