Re: [PATCH] Link dynamic tests with newly built glibc

["Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, H.J. Lu wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> > In various places this patch removes use of run-program-prefix, or
> > replaces built-program-cmd by built-program-file.
> >
> > Having such abstractions used to run tests is still useful towards
> > supporting cross testing - the default setting of the prefix used when
> > running a test program can be empty, but it's still useful to have a
> > variable used for running them which could have a nonempty setting in the
> > cross-test case.  I guess I'd rather see these places use e.g. new
> > variables test-program-prefix and test-program-cmd (defaults empty and
> > built-program-file), or something like that, as a basis for then adding
> > more cross-test support.
> 
> What do you mean by "cross testing"?  Those tests can only be
> run natively.

I intend to contribute support for cross testing at some point - running 
tests on a separate system, of a different architecture, from that on 
which glibc was built.  (The code is already in EGLIBC.)

For cross testing, it's necessary to have an abstraction "run this newly 
built program on the host (rather than the build system)", and 
run-program-prefix and built-program-cmd, through being used in most 
places that run test programs newly built for the host, are a good place 
to hook in that abstraction.

Those variables, however, combine the concept of "run a newly built 
program for the host" with that of "run a newly built program that has 
been built to use the standard dynamic linker path".  The aim of your 
patch relates to this second concept: while programs such as localedef, 
built to be installed, still need to be run using the dynamic linker, test 
programs can be run without executing the dynamic linker specially to run 
them.

Rather than removing both abstractions at once from various affected 
places, so the first abstraction then needs to be added back in all those 
places, it would seem better to make changes that only affect the second 
one.  Instead of completely removing run-program-prefix when running 
testcases, use a variable with the semantics of "run a program that has 
been linked with a -dynamic-linker option pointing into the build tree".  
Likewise for built-program-cmd: the fact that you are running a command is 
still meaningfully different from a reference to the executable file being 
run for that command.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com