This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add a testcase for copy reloc against protected data

On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Joseph Myers <> wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
> >> > Suppose I configure / build with new binutils but a GCC version without
> >> > your patches.  What will the results be?  That the tests don't build /
> >> > run?  That they build / run but fail (best avoided if possible)?  In
> >> > either case, you need clear documentation for architecture maintainers on
> >> > what GCC versions (*not* requiring any uncommitted GCC patches) must be
> >> > used to identify whether architecture-specific changes are needed and to
> >> > test such changes.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I will submit a separate patch to address GCC issue.
> >
> > I don't think these tests should go in glibc until:
> Which tests were you talking about?  My copy relocation
> tests work with any GCC versions, with and without the fix
> for

Thanks for the explanation.  In 
<> you 
originally sent patches for all three of GCC, binutils, glibc, so giving 
the impression there might be dependencies between these patches.  If the 
tests work with any GCC version (i.e. fail if the architecture hasn't been 
fixed, pass if it has been fixed) then GCC changes shouldn't need to block 

Joseph S. Myers

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]