Date 1 - 3 of 3
[Openembedded-architecture] Y2038 proposal
|1 - 3 of 3|
On Thu, 2022-12-01 at 11:27 +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 at 14:15, Richard PurdieI think we should fix those and we should add the target to the
autobuilder but I'm reluctant to add a long test to a-full. The fact it
is relatively clean suggests it doesn't regress that often. We could do
something like a once a month trigger for it?
On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 at 14:15, Richard Purdie
* We need to have a 32 bit ptest run on the autobuilder (qemux86 shouldI just ran qemux86 full ptest locally. It took 4h:10m (same as
qemuarm64 ptest on an arm worker). The fails were:
So I think we could as well fix these, and add full qemux86 ptest to
a-full? It is not heavy on the builder machine (mostly just runs a
single qemu thread), it's just long.
On Wed, 2022-11-30 at 09:07 +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 at 16:45, Stephen Jolley <sjolley.yp.pm@...> wrote:Others have made some good comments. My thoughts:We’d welcome a proposal/series on how to move forward with the Y2038 work for 32 bit platforms.I have the following proposal:
* We need to add some runtime tests to oeqa for this (in addition to
* We need to have a 32 bit ptest run on the autobuilder (qemux86 should
work, not sure we can make qemuarm fast). Whether this is manually
triggered, not sure. We could have a smaller set of ptests to run for
* Could we optionally disable some of the glibc 32 bit function calls
to ensure they're not being used? We don't really want to diverge from
upstream glibc much though.
* We need to work out how to communicate this change happened and have
people "buy in" to it. The reason for that is that if someone has
existing binaries, there could be problems using them after the change.
We therefore need to be sure they are aware of it.
|1 - 3 of 3|