Re: [PING global maintainer/testsuite expert] Re: [patch bfd]: Win32 coff-i386 and coff-x86_64 broken in_reloc_p

[Kai Tietz <ktietz70 at googlemail dot com>]

2010/3/31 Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com>:
> On 31/03/2010 10:35, Kai Tietz wrote:
>
>> bfd/
>
>> ? ? ? ?* coff-i386.c (in_reloc_p): Check also for R_SECREL32.
>> ? ? ? ?* coff-x86_64.c (in_reloc_p): Check also for R_AMD64_SECREL.
>
> ?This part is fine. ?Thank you.
>
>> ld/testsuite
>
>> ? ? ? ?* ld-pe/basefile1.s: New.
>> ? ? ? ?* ld-pe/pe-basefile.exp: New.
>
> ?Sorry to be picky, but is there any reason to put this test in a separate
> .exp file? ?I was told it was a bad thing to proliferate .exp files, so I put
> some effort into reorganising the pe tests into three categories. ?This should
> go fine in pe-compile.exp, shouldn't it? ?I checked the code, I didn't see
> anything that would clash or cause problems.
>
> [PING]: ? Also, I'd like if one of the older hands or someone who knows about
> the testsuite can confirm it's ok to assume the presence and syntax of 'wc
> -c'? ?(I expect it will be, but if it's not, I guess we could change the test
> to use the freshly-built 'size' instead.)
>
> ? ?cheers,
> ? ? ?DaveK
>
>

I moved testcase into pe-compile.exp, which fits here best.

Kai

-- 
|  (\_/) This is Bunny. Copy and paste
| (='.'=) Bunny into your signature to help
| (")_(") him gain world domination

Attachment: basefile.diff
Description: Binary data