bug-binutils
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Bug ld/30915] ld testsuite: visibility incorrectly marked XFAIL on musl


From: nickc at redhat dot com
Subject: [Bug ld/30915] ld testsuite: visibility incorrectly marked XFAIL on musl targets
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2023 10:52:50 +0000

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30915

Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org   |nickc at redhat dot com
                 CC|                            |nickc at redhat dot com
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2023-10-05
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to A. Wilcox from comment #0)

> #if defined (__GLIBC__) && (__GLIBC__ > 2 \
>                             || (__GLIBC__ == 2 \
>                                 &&  __GLIBC_MINOR__ >= 2))


> That is.. not a very helpful test for musl targets.  I don't know the best
> way forward for this.  There is no preprocessor macro test for musl targets,

Still ?  I would have thought that they had realized the problems that this
causes and changed their minds by now.


> so I would suggest something akin to changing the first line from:
> [...]

Given the other problems you found with making this change, I would suggest
that it would be safer to patch vsb.exp instead.   I am uploading a possible
fix, although you may need to to tweak it in order to get it to work.  (I do
not actually have a muscl installation with which I can test it).



> Similarly, for armv7, we have lines 104-111 testing whether non-PIC tests
> should XFAIL:

[This would have been better filed as a separate PR, even though it refers to
code in the same file.  But since you have filed it here...]

> 
> The unsupported relocation does happen but is not a fatal error so the test
> finds the matching regex line ("undefined reference to `visibility'") and
> XPASSes.

So if we make the warnings fatal then the test will work ?

So if you change:

        if [run_host_cmd_yesno "$CC_FOR_TARGET" "$CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET -c
$tmpdir/movw-detect.c -o $tmpdir/movw-detect.o"] {

to:

        if [run_host_cmd_yesno "$CC_FOR_TARGET" "$CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET
-Wl,--fatal-warnings -c $tmpdir/movw-detect.c -o $tmpdir/movw-detect.o"] {

then the test should now work ?

Cheers
  Nick

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]