Re: [patch ld]: Testsuite fix of vers-script-3 and vers-script-4 tests

[Kai Tietz <ktietz70 at googlemail dot com>]

2011/2/15 Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com>:
> 2011/2/15 Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@gmail.com>:
>> On 15/02/2011 15:30, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, I withdraw recent patch. It is just fixing the symptoms but not
>>> the underlying issue.
>>> For 32-bit COFF the real issue is in pe-dll.c file in function
>>> process_def_file_and_drectve. Here the underscore of a symbol is
>>> stripped, and the same time it is done in bfd_demangle, which is used
>>> by bfd_find_version_for_sym. By this in 32-bit case with leading
>>> underscores, they were stripped twice.
>>>
>>> ChangeLog
>>>
>>> 2011-02-15 ?Kai Tietz
>>>
>>> ? ? ? ? ? * pe-dll.c (process_def_file_and_drectve): Don't strip
>>> ? ? ? ? ? leading underscore from symbol by calling bfd_find_version_for_sym.
>>>
>>> Tested for x86_64-w64-mingw32, i686-pc-cygwin, and i686-w64-mingw32.
>>> Ok for apply?
>>
>> ?Nope. ?This causes two regressions on i686-pc-cygwin:
>>
>>> FAIL: vers-script-3
>>> FAIL: vers-script-4
>>
>> ?They pass currently. ?They fail with your patch. ?I'm reasonably sure that I
>> only added that underscore-stripping code when I discovered it to be
>> necessary, but I may not have tested it on a non-prefixing host.
>>
>> ?I don't understand why you want to remove the underscore stripping code to
>> solve a problem on w64, where it should never be active in any case?
>>
>> ? ?cheers,
>> ? ? ?DaveK
>>
>>
>
> Well, for none-underscored code I see no regressions. I see it for
> 32-bit mingw and cygwin. Have you updated your tree? I assume it is
> related to some indirect changes.
>
> For me the vers-script-3 and vers-script-4 tests in pe-ld are failing
> at the moment in an unpatched variant.
>
> Kai
>
> PS: See
> 2011-02-14 ?Mike Frysinger ?<vapier@gentoo.org>
>
> ? ? ? ?* ldlang.c (lang_vers_match): Declare a new c_sym, assign it to
> ? ? ? ?the bfd_demangle of sym, change users of sym to c_sym when not
> ? ? ? ?already demangling, and free when done. ?Change callers of
> ? ? ? ?cplus_demangle to bfd_demangle.
>
> This could be the culprit here.
>

Applied.

Thanks,
Kai