[Toybox] CI for toybox

[Roger Meier]

> > At the moment I do
> > - sloccount
> > - cppcheck, probably splint as a future option
> > - build with gcc, clang and arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc
> > - run testsuite for gcc and clang built binaries
> 
> Cool.  Does it build ok with clang?  I haven't got that set up here.  (I
might
> finally get a bionic build environment set up this weekend.
> Fingers crossed...)
Yes, it builds with clang!
Please have a look here: http://www.bufferoverflow.ch/jenkins/job/toybox/
I added also a task scanner, looking for FIXME, HACK, TODO and sprintf
usage.
>From my perspective, CI is an essential part for building and improving
software.

> The most comprehensive I've come up with is the giant presentation, 260
> slides available online or a giant (90 meg) PDF:
> 
> http://speakerdeck.com/u/mirell/p/developing-for-non-x86-targets-using-
> qemu
> http://landley.net/aboriginal/downloads/presentation.pdf
> 
Yes, qemu is a great thing!
I just studied this: http://www.elinux.org/Virtual_Development_Board

> 
> 
> >> P.S.  I still vaguely want to get the package list down to four
> >> packages: "compiler, libc, kernel, toybox". I had a tinycc fork for
> >> the first (http://landley.net/code/tinycc and
> >> http://landley.net/code/tinycc/qcc), and yes this means I'd need to
> >> add "make" to toybox, but it _is_ in the SUSv4 utility list.  No
> >> point until I get a non-gcc/binutils compiler, though...)
I prefer llvm.

> >
> > That's the same I look for, at the moment I have the following
> > components in mind:
> >
> > compiler    http://llvm.org/
> > kernel      http://www.kernel.org/
> > libc        http://www.sourceware.org/newlib/
> > libc++      http://libcxx.llvm.org/
> > coreutils++ http://landley.net/code/toybox/
> 
> llvm being implemented in C++ sets my teeth on edge, but since I haven't
got
> a better alternative...
llvm is already part of FreeBSD 9:
http://wiki.freebsd.org/BuildingFreeBSDWithClang
http://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsAndClang

> 
> > I would like to have a *liberal OS* where the user or distributor can
> > define most parts of what free is;-)
> 
> Um, the BSDs exist?
Linux Kernel supports a wider range of CPU's or SOC's and peripherals => the
world needs this
BSD on embedded? Ok, some are supported(e.g. AT91).
What's the future? What do Chip Vendors?
Is there a BSD Kernel <=>Linux Kernel compatibility layer?