verilator: set doCheck to true

[yangm2]

Motivation for this change

Follow-on to #109249 enabling doCheck for Verilator

Things done

• Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
• Built on platform(s)
  • NixOS
  • macOS
  • other Linux distributions
• Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
• Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
• Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
• Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

[SuperSandro2000]

This is a semi-automatic executed nixpkgs-review which does not build all packages (e.g. lumo, tensorflow or pytorch)
If you find some bugs or got suggestions for further things to search or run please reach out to SuperSandro2000 on IRC.

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 109493 run on x86_64-linux 1

1 package failed to build and are new build failure:

• verilator: log https://termbin.com/pnv1

[SuperSandro2000]

This is a semi-automatic executed nixpkgs-review which does not build all packages (e.g. lumo, tensorflow or pytorch)
If you find some bugs or got suggestions for further things to search or run please reach out to SuperSandro2000 on IRC.

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 109493 run on x86_64-darwin 1

1 package failed to build and are new build failure:

• verilator: log https://termbin.com/71iz

[thoughtpolice]

Thanks! This is something I've wanted to get around to. When the CI looks good we can go ahead.

I seem to remember trying to enable this at some point and it looking a little hairy a long time ago, but it might have gotten better. We can also always send patches upstream, too...

[yangm2]

This is my first time trying to dig deeper into nixpkgs and NixOS ... I'm developing on a Mac/M1. Is iterating through CI the best way? I didn't see a great option for testing this on NixOS locally (VirtualBox?).

[yangm2]

@thoughtpolice GH says all checks have passed (do we ignore the "neutral checks" that failed?). I don't see any new failure emails from Sandro. Does that mean this is ready for review?

[SuperSandro2000]

Is iterating through CI the best way?

No, because it takes a long time and especially in big PRs keeps ofborg busy. Testing locally is always preferred.

I didn't see a great option for testing this on NixOS locally (VirtualBox?).

You can use virtualbox or vagrant if you like https://github.com/nix-community/nixbox.

do we ignore the "neutral checks" that failed?

That should be the same or similar checks that failed for me. I honestly don't know why they are neutral but the tests need to pass for amd64 linux at least. For darwin we can disable them.

I don't see any new failure emails from Sandro. Does that mean this is ready for review?

I am just busy with a lot of PRs and didn't have the time to take another look at this.

[SuperSandro2000]

This is a semi-automatic executed nixpkgs-review which does not build all packages (e.g. lumo, tensorflow or pytorch)
If you find some bugs or got suggestions for further things to search or run please reach out to SuperSandro2000 on IRC.

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 109493 run on x86_64-darwin 1

1 package failed to build and are new build failure:

• verilator: log https://termbin.com/uoum

[stale]

I marked this as stale due to inactivity. → More info

[thoughtpolice]

@yangm2 Hi there, I saw you closed this. Sorry for letting it slide. I was able to look into this when I saw the notification, and also saw that Verilator happily released 5.x recently, so I took the liberty to resurrect your patch to enable the testsuite: see #199068

Sorry for the (super) long wait!

[yangm2]

Awesome, thanks!