[ld/testsuite] Skip "Mixing PIC and non-PIC" testcase on ARM/AArch64 if when no -fpie or -fPIE

[H.J. Lu]

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@foss.arm.com> wrote:
>
> H.J. Lu writes:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@foss.arm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02/03/16 17:40, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@foss.arm.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 02/03/16 16:40, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@foss.arm.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Have you looked at the testcase I added? Are there anything
>>>>>>>>>> which are target specific?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do have looked at the testcase, they do be purely C code.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the convention of generic is syntax generic instead of both syntax
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> sematics, I don't have further comment on this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyway, attached patch skips the non-pie version "Mixing PIC and
>>>>>>>>> non-PIC"
>>>>>>>>> testcase.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not sure if it's trivial enough to qualify obvious, so OK for master
>>>>>>>>> branch?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2016-03-02  Jiong Wang  <jiong.wang@arm.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ld/testsuite/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>      * ld-elf/shared.exp (mix_pic_and_non_pic): Only run on ARM and
>>>>>>>>> AArch64
>>>>>>>>>        when -fPIE or -fpie specified.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is wrong.  If you don't want to see FAIL, you can skip the whole.
>>>>>>>> mix_pic_and_non_pic.  Please don't modify mix_pic_and_non_pic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then, how about the updated version?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2016-03-02  Jiong Wang  <jiong.wang@arm.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ld/testsuite/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      * ld-elf/shared.exp: Skip "Mixing PIC and non-PIC" on ARM and
>>>>>>> AArch64
>>>>>>>      if -fpie or -fPIE not specified.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please use setup_xfail instead of skipping.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> setup_xfail will actually update one global xfail related flag which
>>>>> affect
>>>>> the
>>>>> pass/fail after it. so you must put "setup_xfail" accurately before the
>>>>> fail
>>>>> you
>>>>> want to xfail or the pass you want to xpass.
>>>>
>>>> There is
>>>>
>>>> ld-elf/comm-data.exp:setup_xfail "arm*-*-*" "ld/13802"
>>>>
>>>> How does it work?
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that's because it's using run_ld_link_test, while your
>>> "mix_pic_and_non_pic"
>>> is using run_cc_link_test.
>>>
>>> From ld.log, those compile steps in run_cc_link_test is treated as a
>>> seperate tesing, thus
>>> an internal PASS is generated. So if you put setup_xfail outside
>>> mix_pic_and_non_pic, then
>>> the flag setup will be wrongly taken by the later PASS and turns it into
>>> XPASS.
>>
>> Have you tried?  I tried:
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-elf/shared.exp b/ld/testsuite/ld-elf/shared.exp
>> index 0624f0d..69b9e38 100644
>> --- a/ld/testsuite/ld-elf/shared.exp
>> +++ b/ld/testsuite/ld-elf/shared.exp
>> @@ -649,5 +649,6 @@ proc mix_pic_and_non_pic {cflags ldflags} {
>>      }
>>  }
>>
>> +setup_xfail "*-*-*"
>>  mix_pic_and_non_pic "" ""
>>  mix_pic_and_non_pic "-fPIE" "-pie"
>>
>> I only got
>>
>> XPASS: Build libpr19719a.so
>
> That's exactly the problem I said.  The xfail flag has taken by the
> following check, no?
>
> With the use of "setup_xfail", what we are expecting is:
>
>   PASS: Build libpr19719a.so
>   XFAIL: Mixing PIC and non-PIC
>
> not:
>
>   XPASS: Build libpr19719a.so
>   FAIL: Mixing PIC and non-PIC
>

Try this.


-- 
H.J.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: xfail.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1015 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/attachments/20160302/37202a20/attachment.bin>