This is the mail archive of the
libc-ports@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the libc-ports project.
Re: Dynamic VFP support and math/test-fpucw
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- Cc: <libc-ports at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:40:53 +0000
- Subject: Re: Dynamic VFP support and math/test-fpucw
- References: <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1306171909380 dot 15498 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20130617194154 dot 2287E2C095 at topped-with-meat dot com>
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Roland McGrath wrote:
> You could override the test with a sysdeps/arm/test-fpucw.c.
> You could override the installed fpu_control.h with a
> sysdeps/arm/include/fpu_control.h that tests NOT_IN_libc or something.
The trouble is, those options seem rather fragile as well. Maybe the
least bad is overriding the test with a file that just defines e.g.
_LIBC_TEST and includes the main test-fpucw.c (with fpu_control.h then
checking _LIBC_TEST). The difficulty with the second is that dynamic VFP
detection is used in both libc and libm, so NOT_IN_libc isn't sufficient
on its own. Really I suppose what's wanted, in the absence of not
defining _LIBC for tests, would be a macro such as IN_tests that gets
automatically defined for testcase code; then at least fpu_control.h could
test that after _LIBC (if it's only tested conditional on _LIBC, namespace
issues wouldn't matter for IN_tests because no user application should
ever define _LIBC).
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com