On 03.03.2019 00:56, Christos Zoulas wrote: > In article <f6d4ca20179f1a2b4278e411a86ccc21ad203e59.camel%NetBSD.org@localhost>, > MichaŠGórny <mgorny%NetBSD.org@localhost> wrote: >> -=-=-=-=-=- >> >> Hello, >> >> I've just published the report on my first month of work on LLDB: >> http://blog.netbsd.org/tnf/entry/lldb_from_trunk_is_running >> >> Long story short, I'm working on LLDB as contracted by the NetBSD >> Foundation. I've been able to fix the regression preventing LLDB from >> starting processes, and I've been working on getting the test suite to >> work reliably (passing or xfailing as appropriate), in order to enable >> continuous integration and regression catching. >> >> In the report I've detailed on the more interesting issues I've found, >> and summarized what I'm about to do next. > > Thanks a lot! This is good progress. Can you also say how many tests > are still failing and what's your estimate of the effort fixing them? > I.e. do you think that we are missing functionality, are there bugs > we need to fix etc? > > Best, > > christos > I proposed originally to add check-lldb as numbers are easy to get idea of how much work is still to do. Unfortunately as mentioned by Michal, these data statistics wouldn't be meaningful as we return XFAIL/UNSUPPORTED ones as success. If I would need to generalize - the current LLDB/NetBSD support is quite reliable in its minimal scope of support and the remaining feature are mostly about adding support of missing features that require solid kernel behavior. I'm busy on my side to make the kernel part a stable foundation.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature