bogus test case expectations

[Jan Beulich]

>>> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> 21.07.09 17:33 >>>
>On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Jan Beulich<JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:
>>>>> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> 21.07.09 16:38 >>>
>>>On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Jan Beulich<JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:
>>>> Finally I found time to debug why, after initially working with the
>>>> snapshot_symbol() change I had done in late 2005, some local changes I
>>>> had on top of this stopped working in newer binutils releases. I was about
>>>> to propose below change (with the rationale that the comment "Never
>>>> change a defined symbol.", while correct, didn't match the code, as the
>>>> check was done against the perhaps already updated symbol, not the
>>>> one that got passed in). This, however, causes one of the four ia64 test
>>>> cases added together with that change to fail.
>>>
>>>I have no objections to update comments.
>>
>> My goal is to make the code do what the comment says (which is what I'd
>> also expect the code to do), not adjust the comment. But perhaps I mis-
>> understand the intentions you had when making the change? If so, you'd
>> be asked to provide a comment explaining those intentions...
>>
>
>My change was to fix
>
>http://www.sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2117 
>
>ltoff22x-2.[sd] is one testcase for PR 2117. As long as those
>testcases pass without modifications, I have no problems.

Again, I understand all that. What I don't understand is why the code change
you did doesn't match the description associated with it. Instead of me
repeating the issue I'm having with it, could you please re-read the initial
part of my mail (still visible above)?

Thanks, Jan