[RFA:] Trivial test for .gnu.warning.SYMBOL

[Eric Botcazou]

> Yes it does, at least for sparc64-linux-gnu cross from
> i686-pc-linux-gnu.

And?  What do you think will happen on a 64-bit SPARC platform where the text 
segment is not located in the lower 32-bit part of the address space?

> The truncation doesn't matter for the purpose of this test, as
> long as ld doesn't emit an error or warning message.

./ld-new  -L/home/eric/cvs/binutils/ld/testsuite/ld-elf   -o tmpdir/dump 
tmpdir/dump0.o tmpdir/dump1.o tmpdir/dump2.o
failed with: <tmpdir/dump1.o:(.text+0x0): warning: witty one-liner
tmpdir/dump1.o:(.text+0x0): relocation truncated to fit: R_SPARC_32 against 
symbol `symbol1' defined in .text section in tmpdir/dump2.o>, expected: 
<^[^\\n]*\): warning: witty one-liner$>
tmpdir/dump1.o:(.text+0x0): warning: witty one-liner
tmpdir/dump1.o:(.text+0x0): relocation truncated to fit: R_SPARC_32 against 
symbol `symbol1' defined in .text section in tmpdir/dump2.o
FAIL: ld-elf/warn1

This is on Solaris 64-bit.

> No need this time, but for future reference, look in
> ld/testsuite/ld-lib.exp:run_dump_test, where the big header
> comment provides all :-/ documentation.  There's a specific
> directive to exclude targets.

Thanks.

-- 
Eric Botcazou