ld test failure on ARM GNU/Linux

[Alan Modra]

On 10 Apr 2000, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

>    Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 16:38:05 -0700
>    From: Richard Henderson <rth@cygnus.com>
> 
>    > Richard, you
>    > wrote this code in the first place; what would you expect to happen
>    > with the ld/testsuite/ld-selective/3.cc code?
> 
>    As documented in the "keep" and "lose" comments in the test case.
>    I don't believe there are any symbols not mentioned in the comments.
> 
> Then the testsuite does not match the test case, and selective.exp
> should be fixed.  And the test will presumably start failing when
> using gcc 2.95.2 on i386 GNU/Linux.

Not if you simply remove the test for absense of foo__1B
Like so.

--- ld/testsuite/ld-selective/selective.exp~	Sat Dec 11 12:07:22 1999
+++ ld/testsuite/ld-selective/selective.exp	Tue Apr 11 11:35:18 2000
@@ -136,20 +136,14 @@ if ![ld_simple_link $ld tmpdir/3.x "$ldf
     if ![ld_nm $nm tmpdir/3.x] {
        unresolved $test4
     } else {
-       if {[info exists nm_output(foo__1B)]} {
-          send_log "foo__1B == $nm_output(foo__1B)\n"
-          verbose "foo__1B == $nm_output(foo__1B)"
-          fail $test4
-       } else {
-           if {[ info exists nm_output(bar__1A)]} {
-              send_log "bar__1A== $nm_output(_bar__1A)\n"
-              verbose "bar__1A == $nm_output(_bar__1A)"
-              fail $test4
-           } else {
-               pass $test4
-             }
-          }
-      }
+	if {[ info exists nm_output(bar__1A)]} {
+	    send_log "bar__1A== $nm_output(_bar__1A)\n"
+	    verbose "bar__1A == $nm_output(_bar__1A)"
+	    fail $test4
+	} else {
+	    pass $test4
+	}
+    }
 }
 
 if { ![ld_compile "$CC $cflags $cxxflags" $srcdir/$subdir/4.cc tmpdir/4.o]} {

-- 
Linuxcare.  Support for the Revolution.