build tools: fix target toolchain #12995

0xc0170 · 2020-05-19T09:30:11Z

Summary of changes

The latest merge introduced a bug. We assumed all targets should be built with ARM and GCC ARM but it's not true. Thus tests are failing now.

This PR introduces two fixes:

return previous version of toolchains supported (same functionality as previously)
revert baremetal for all targets (not yet ready)

Impact of changes

Migration actions required

Documentation

Pull request type

[x] Patch update (Bug fix / Target update / Docs update / Test update / Refactor)
[] Feature update (New feature / Functionality change / New API)
[] Major update (Breaking change E.g. Return code change / API behaviour change)

Test results

[] No Tests required for this change (E.g docs only update)
[x] Covered by existing mbed-os tests (Greentea or Unittest)
[] Tests / results supplied as part of this PR

Reviewers

@evedon @jamesbeyond

Revert back to the toolchain function. Although it should be refactored (return just list of toolchains from a target).

This reverts commit 9b4cddd. Not all targets can be enabled, will need more work.

It might be a bug as it should work.

jamesbeyond · 2020-05-19T09:42:15Z

tools/build_api.py

@@ -424,7 +424,8 @@ def get_mbed_official_release(version, profile=None):
            tuple(
                [
                    TARGET_MAP[target].name,
-                    tuple(['ARM', 'GCC_ARM'])
+                    tuple(transform_release_toolchains(


since it calling the function transform_release_toolchains may I suggest please change
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbed-os/blob/master/tools/build_api.py#L388
and
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbed-os/blob/master/tools/build_api.py#L398
to if version in [ '5' , '6' ]
otherwise if passing '6' this API will not work

do we pass '6' ? It's not defined anywhere in the tools currently

I updated the PR

This is what I am not sure, it is not defined, but it is a valid use case

I don't understand why we are introducing "6"

+1, I would not introduce 6 in the tools . Let's stay with what we are . If we introduce 6, it should be with updated tools (not the current form). As adding 6, we are creating new flow (in reality, its the same as 5 here so not needed).

I would revert that 6 addition

I got it ready locally, can push :)

0xc0170 · 2020-05-19T11:07:10Z

Investigating the TypeError there

0xc0170 · 2020-05-19T11:44:01Z

CI restarted

Fixed, silly typo.

Pull request has been modified.

0xc0170 · 2020-05-19T12:00:28Z

I also fixed a version ('6' should be everywhere now)

mbed-ci · 2020-05-19T12:06:09Z

Test run: FAILED

Summary: 2 of 3 test jobs failed
Build number : 2
Build artifacts

Failed test jobs:

jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-ARM
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-GCC_ARM

0xc0170 · 2020-05-19T12:06:58Z

CI restarted

ciarmcom · 2020-05-19T13:00:35Z

@0xc0170, thank you for your changes.
@evedon @jamesbeyond @ARMmbed/mbed-os-tools @ARMmbed/mbed-os-maintainers please review.

mbed-ci · 2020-05-19T13:37:56Z

Test run: FAILED

Summary: 1 of 6 test jobs failed
Build number : 3
Build artifacts

Failed test jobs:

jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_dynamic-memory-usage

0xc0170 · 2020-05-19T13:39:21Z

CI restarted

mbed-ci · 2020-05-19T14:07:30Z

Test run: FAILED

Summary: 2 of 3 test jobs failed
Build number : 4
Build artifacts

Failed test jobs:

jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-ARM
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-GCC_ARM

0xc0170 · 2020-05-19T14:19:59Z

[Fatal Error] border_router_main.cpp@11,10: 'sal-stack-nanostack-slip/Slip.h' file not found
[ERROR] ./source/border_router_main.cpp:11:10: fatal error: 'sal-stack-nanostack-slip/Slip.h' file not found
#include "sal-stack-nanostack-slip/Slip.h"

This is in the logs, checking why suddenly it broke

mbed-ci · 2020-05-19T14:57:35Z

Test run: SUCCESS

Summary: 6 of 6 test jobs passed
Build number : 5
Build artifacts

0xc0170 · 2020-05-19T15:02:04Z

Looks like this is ready to land.

@evedon @jamesbeyond Please review if the current form is what we agreed

evedon

LGTM

jeromecoutant · 2020-05-20T05:50:33Z

Hi
Why
"supported_application_profiles": ["rtos", "bare-metal"]
has not been added to "MCU_STM32" ?

jeromecoutant · 2020-05-20T05:52:34Z

targets/targets.json

@@ -1497,7 +1499,10 @@
            "MPU"
        ],
        "bootloader_supported": true,
-        "device_name": "STM32F303RE"
+        "device_name": "STM32F303RE",
+        "supported_application_profiles": [


Remove these lines and add in "MCU_STM32"

Hi @evedon, are all the STM32 MCUs able to be used in bare-metal mode?
I believe we haven't fully tested all of them? is there anything blocking them to be used in baremetal mode?

jeromecoutant · 2020-05-20T05:52:44Z

targets/targets.json

@@ -1648,7 +1653,10 @@
            "MPU"
        ],
        "device_name": "STM32F411RE",
-        "bootloader_supported": true
+        "bootloader_supported": true,
+        "supported_application_profiles": [


Remove these lines and add in "MCU_STM32"

jeromecoutant · 2020-05-20T05:52:55Z

targets/targets.json

@@ -2000,7 +2008,10 @@
        "bootloader_supported": true,
        "overrides": {
            "network-default-interface-type": "ETHERNET"
-        }
+        },
+        "supported_application_profiles": [


Remove these lines and add in "MCU_STM32"

jeromecoutant · 2020-05-20T05:53:26Z

targets/targets.json

@@ -3474,7 +3485,10 @@
            "BLE"
        ],
        "device_name": "STM32L475VG",
-        "bootloader_supported": true
+        "bootloader_supported": true,
+        "supported_application_profiles": [


Remove these lines and add in "MCU_STM32"

jamesbeyond · 2020-05-20T11:07:25Z

Hi
Why
"supported_application_profiles": ["rtos", "bare-metal"]
has not been added to "MCU_STM32" ?

one issue I can think of is in bare-metal mode we are supporting small lib (nanolib for GCC, microlib for ARMC6), those small lib will require the mbed 2-region memory model. not all the STM MCUs been ported to this 2-region memory model. e.g:
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbed-os/blob/master/targets/TARGET_STM/TARGET_STM32L4/TARGET_STM32L486xG/device/TOOLCHAIN_ARM/stm32l486xx.sct
and
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbed-os/blob/master/targets/TARGET_STM/TARGET_STM32L4/TARGET_STM32L496xG/device/TOOLCHAIN_ARM/stm32l496xx.sct

jeromecoutant · 2020-05-20T11:49:05Z

I agree, I got patches :-)
First push has been done with #12992

0xc0170 added 4 commits May 19, 2020 10:23

build: target toolchain return

b43fc0c

Revert back to the toolchain function. Although it should be refactored (return just list of toolchains from a target).

Revert "targets: enable baremetal by default"

dd6ed6c

This reverts commit 9b4cddd. Not all targets can be enabled, will need more work.

targets: profiles remove/add not functional, replace it

6ca3c42

It might be a bug as it should work.

targets: fix indent

ada8781

jamesbeyond reviewed May 19, 2020

View reviewed changes

0xc0170 added 2 commits May 19, 2020 10:45

targets: add baremetal to some known tested targets

3847373

targets: add version 6 to the toolchain

5a9ad74

jamesbeyond previously approved these changes May 19, 2020

View reviewed changes

0xc0170 added needs: review release-version: 6.0.0-rc1 labels May 19, 2020

mergify bot added needs: CI and removed needs: review labels May 19, 2020

tools build: remove git diff typo

12cadc2

tools build: add 6 to the version check

bcfa1f9

0xc0170 force-pushed the fix_target_toolchain branch from fd03697 to bcfa1f9 Compare May 19, 2020 12:05

ciarmcom requested review from evedon, jamesbeyond and a team May 19, 2020 13:00

ciarmcom added the needs: review label May 19, 2020

build tools: remove version 6

1088fa0

0xc0170 removed the needs: review label May 19, 2020

mergify bot added needs: work and removed needs: CI labels May 19, 2020

evedon approved these changes May 19, 2020

View reviewed changes

0xc0170 added ready for merge and removed needs: work labels May 19, 2020

0xc0170 merged commit 9a8c9e2 into ARMmbed:master May 19, 2020

mergify bot removed the ready for merge label May 19, 2020

jeromecoutant reviewed May 20, 2020

View reviewed changes

0xc0170 deleted the fix_target_toolchain branch May 20, 2020 14:15

build tools: fix target toolchain #12995

build tools: fix target toolchain #12995

Uh oh!

Conversation

0xc0170 commented May 19, 2020

Summary of changes

Impact of changes

Migration actions required

Documentation

Pull request type

Test results

Reviewers

Uh oh!

jamesbeyond May 19, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

0xc0170 commented May 19, 2020

Uh oh!

0xc0170 commented May 19, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

0xc0170 commented May 19, 2020

Uh oh!

mbed-ci commented May 19, 2020

Uh oh!

0xc0170 commented May 19, 2020

Uh oh!

ciarmcom commented May 19, 2020

Uh oh!

mbed-ci commented May 19, 2020

Uh oh!

0xc0170 commented May 19, 2020

Uh oh!

mbed-ci commented May 19, 2020

Uh oh!

0xc0170 commented May 19, 2020

Uh oh!

mbed-ci commented May 19, 2020

Uh oh!

0xc0170 commented May 19, 2020

Uh oh!

evedon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jeromecoutant commented May 20, 2020

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jamesbeyond commented May 20, 2020

Uh oh!

jeromecoutant commented May 20, 2020

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jamesbeyond May 19, 2020 •

edited

Loading

0xc0170 commented May 19, 2020 •

edited

Loading